MovieChat Forums > Quentin Tarantino Discussion > the hate towards him from some folks...

the hate towards him from some folks...

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
41 replies | jump to latest

Is it just me or do some folks who deeply despise the man come off reeking of jealousy a little? Hear me out...

Now I'm not saying that every single person out there who dislikes Quentin Tarantino is jealous of him, or even the vast majority. What I'm saying, is that there seems to be a small contingent of vehement haters out there whose spitefulness seems to be driven, at least in part, by jealousy.

Quentin Tarantino is in many ways, the ideal self-projection of the self-taught, non-academic cinephile. The man accumulated his vast array of cinema knowledge not through film school or academically approved movie encyclopedias, but just by watching movies. His time spent working in Video Archives gave him access to many old, obscure films that many would not have been able to see prior to the discovery of the Internet. As such, he developed an edge over his many contemporaries by having far more eclectic influences than just the guys you learn about in film school (Welles, Hitchcock, Kurosawa etc).

In many ways, his rise to success is the stuff of fairy tales. Plenty of aspiring filmmakers out there naively believe that if they just spend all their time watching movies, they will someday amount to the same level of greatness. Yet, most of them fail, as few have the innate talent someone like Tarantino was blessed with. Hell, some don't even have the motivation to pick up a camera and start making a film.

This is where I believe the plagiarism allegations come in, mostly from people who haven't even seen the films he's allegedly "stolen" from. They are jealous, and they want to prove that they know cinema just as much, if not more so than Quentin. Anyone who's ever hung around movie discussion sites and movie fan meetup events knows that there is an innate sense of competition over whose seen more stuff whenever you attend such arenas. For some, having seen more Truffaut or Fellini over others is like a membership to MENSA.

I think for a lot of aspiring/failed filmmakers out there, Quentin is an easy guy to hate as he's become the living embodiment of the movie obsessed, cinephile director out there. Most other directors are big movie fans too, of course, but Quentin has the reputation for being the one director who's seen them all. He doesn't even try to hide his influences much, and often goes out of his way to promote the films that inspired him growing up. I think a lot of people just hate seeing a guy who's succeeded not by doing anything wildly different to what they did (watching movies, reading film criticism, borrowing from them etc), but by doing it well. I think for a lot of people, that idea of pure talent scares them. His cocky, brash persona doesn't help either.

Any thoughts?

Discuss...

[–] TheDuke007 (17) 4 years ago

Forever love QT haha f*ck the haters

[–] Moonglum9 (10711) 4 years ago

I've seen more Truffaut and Fellini than anyone here, I bet. Yeah, I'm pretty proud of that. Those are like mushrooms and cats, right?

[–] kwestmo (4114) 4 years ago

I think it's because he just seems like a prick in interviews. You know the guy in high school who seemed to be popular, but no one really liked him. The obnoxious guy at work that's in with management. He may be an OK guy, but e doesn't put off that vibe

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

This.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

Do you have something to add Pop?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I did have, but settled for the comment below. I just don't think the fool is worth talking about, Buck.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

That's certainly a part of it, but that only amounts to a small fraction of the deeper pathology I just described. You're grossly oversimplifying it.

[–] kwestmo (4114) 4 years ago

Oversimplifying, yes, I'm not going to get in to an analysis over something this trivial.

However, with the internet people have the ability to complain about people like this because they rant anonymously without possibly of retribution. A lot of people in the industry may feel this way but can't complain. Plus QT is bigger than life.

My guess ( meaning no actual knowledge) is he was like the Christian Slater character from TR, then because powerful and famous rather quickly and didn't adapt well. His real personality may be like his cameo in SWM; I would like to hang out with that guy.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheDuke007 (17) 4 years ago

Well duh, life is an act and a big beautiful game.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No offence, Mr Rockey, but you've mentioned every single reason why I can't stand the fool.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

I would much rather have a beer with P.T. Anderson. Cut glass.

https://youtu.be/JD00qSVExPE

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12280) 4 years ago

I don't hate him, but I sure don't like him either. His movies creep me out, and the subject matter in many of them is disturbing. It makes you wonder what kind of mind can come up with some of that shit.

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 4 years ago

If you don't like this cinema I can't help you. California Valley shit.

https://youtu.be/bZRzeUrVy1o

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 4 years ago

In 1818 Mary Shelley wrote about grave robbers stealing body parts, stitching them together and resurrecting it and then it went on a murderous rampage.

Whats your view on her?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12280) 4 years ago

Creepy too, but I did watch "Prophets of Science Fiction" to see where she was coming from. I feel bad for her because her life was so tragic. Plus, "Young Frankenstein" was better than her book.

Keep in mind she never wrote about people doing fake karate moves that could make a person's heart explode, stabbing people and making them squirt blood, getting buried alive and not only punching the coffin open, but digging your way out of 6 feet of dirt (which the Mythbusters busted), getting trapped in a glass coffin filled with fire ants, or any of the other creepy shit Tarantino came up with.

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 4 years ago

>Plus, "Young Frankenstein" was better than her book.

Dude, it was written in 1818. It was kinda revolutionary. Dismissing the writer as "creepy" in a negative context makes you kinda "creepy" in a negative context.

And Young Frankenstein was mainly based on "Frankenstein" the 1931 film and other parts of the Universal Frankenstein series, it only loosely resembles the book. If you want to watch something good watch Bride of Frankenstein, which is better than any other Frankenstein movie.

You should really stop watching movies if you cant take the imagination of creatives.

You ever read the bible series of books? you would freak your shit over that

>but digging your way out of 6 feet of dirt (which the Mythbusters busted)

Spiderman aint real either.

Zero princesses on this planet could make an ice sculpture with magical powers. Mythbusters should test that one.

Forget Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Too much blood, guts and things mythbusters could debunk.

I mean, that creepy dude GRR Martin and the things his mind came up with. What a freak!!!!!!!!!

Creeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy

[–] robocat893 (13413) 4 years ago

Tarantino may be an idiot at times but he is a brilliant writer and director.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12280) 4 years ago

Dude, if you looked a little more closely, you would understand a bit better than some shallow teenager with the IQ of a houseplant. I like "Young Frankenstein" more, not because it was "accurate" to Mary Shelley's book, but because the doctor in that one eventually took responsibility for his creation and fixed the mistake he made. The movie also had a happy ending, unlike the original book or 1930s movie, where the doc rejects his creation and lets it run amok before it eventually destroys him. It's symbolic of stupid, irresponsible parents who reject the baby they created and brought into this world, much like your parents should have done, rather than let their idiocy be spread among the masses.

I have probably read more books and seen more movies than someone like you could count on all your fingers and toes. I know creativity when I see it, and while it cannot be denied that Quentin Tarantino is creative, such imagery he puts into his "art" is not the product of a stable or well-balanced psyche.

I've probably read more books of the Bible and seen films about it than you have. You don't even sound like you've seen one in a long time, let alone cracked one open. And your throwing in arguments about fantasy characters and other book series is one of the worst strawman arguments I have ever seen.

It appears we have come across yet another pathetic example of the failed school system in this day and age. You get about as much out of that "education" as your pathetic parents paid for it, which is nothing. Your temper tantrum to defend the sick puppy known as Tarantino has failed miserably and I shall leave you to your sad, empty, cowardly existence. Good day.

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 4 years ago

Ha ha most of your rant was shaming and insults. My eyes just glaze over, don't even bother. Merely insult porn.

>you would understand a bit better than some shallow teenager with the IQ of a houseplant.

Your user name is "girl". The dictionary definition of girl is:

a female child. You infantilised yourself from the first word.

> unlike the original book or 1930s movie, where the doc rejects his creation and lets it run amok before it eventually destroys him.

Huh, doesn't sound like you know the book. Maybe re-read it. Or at least skim Wikipedia before you answer.

>I've probably read more books of the Bible.

Never read the Bible, never intend to. Im more drawn to other fantasy works. Jesus was a pretty crappy wizard. Wine into water? Bread into fish? it takes him 3 whole days to rejuvenate and take his final form, which ends up being nothing, chilling, somewhere. Those are kinda sh**y super powers. Definitely needs a reboot.

>seen more movies than someone like you could count on all your fingers and toes

Doubt it. Put your money where your mouth is Atomic girl.

https://www.imdb.com/user/ur13429119/ratings

>such imagery he puts into his "art" is not the product of a stable or well-balanced psyche.

So art is only good from a stable mind? You like Van Gogh? Phillip Seymore Hoffman? Robin Williams? and many other unstable creatives.

And the fact that your main rediculous point being that an artist should be dismissed if the subject matter goes over YOUR line.

What are your views on Hitchcock? Most of his films are about murder, gruesome death and/or mental illness. One of his films had two guys murder a friend, put the body in a box then invite people over for a party using the box as a table.

What about Sam Raimi? David Lynch, Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Joe Dante, David Cronenburg, Guillermo del Toro, John Carpenter, Stephen King, Edgar Allan Poe and many other people that may have gone over your line?

All dismissed as "creepy".

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20440) 4 years ago

This is the thread I had replied to that I told you about several days ago. Sorry it took so long to remember.

https://moviechat.org/nm0000233/Quentin-Tarantino/5e099cf2dcc4ab665418d688/Why-is-Quentin-Tarantino-given-a-pass-on-the-violence-directed-at-women-in-his-movies

[–] mitzibishi (1617) 4 years ago

wow that Misandrist got TKO'd

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6923) 4 years ago

I understand that he's not for everyone, nor is his work. He's also kind of an eccentric, which I think many find a turn off.

But as for the actual hate comments, it appears to me to usually come from a place of homophobia. No one says, "I don't like your movies, you should die" - as far as I can tell. But a lot of people do consider his sexual preference for woman a lie in very loud, very abusive ways.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

You come across as one of those pathetic gays who insist Marlon Brando was a homosexual because they daydream about him. If you read Brando's autobiography, however, he didn't have a homosexual bone in his body.

I'm guessing it's the same thing with Tarantino.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6923) 4 years ago

As a straight woman, Marlon Brando being a homosexual wouldn't serve me in any way. Not that his sexual preference would serve me at all either way.

As for your comment, I think you responded under the assumption that I believe he is gay, which I don't - not that it even matters. I'm simply stating that people's hate for him seems to draw mostly from that assumption, and often hate comments are calling him a liar about his presumed homosexuality.

But yeah, I guess I could be considered pathetic, given I'm responding to a stranger on the internet who name-called for I'm even sure what reason.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

I apologize for mistaking your post; it's just how it came across to me. And thanks for clearing it up.

I want to stress, however, that I didn't name-call anyone. The gays who keep slandering Brando simply because they fantasize about him are indeed pathetic. His long autobiography clears that issue up; he even chronicled an occasion when he was a stage actor in New York City where he punched a guy for coming on to him.

As far as Tarantino goes, I'm sure what you say is true, but I've never personally heard anyone accuse him of being homosexual.

As you probably know, he married Daniella Pick during the making of "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood." She played the hippie chick that Cliff Booth (Pitt) picks up hitchhiking. Since Tarantino went out of his way to spotlight her derriere in that particular scene it pretty much gives away his sexuality.

Sorry again for mistaking your post.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6923) 4 years ago

I accept your apology. I understand where you're coming from I guess, but I would suggest trying to engage with those "pathetic gays" instead of attacking from the start.

I didn't know about his current marriage, but (though I'm no longer shipping Appletino) I always thought he and Fiona Apple were good together.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

Calling them out for slandering someone without proof just because they lust after him is engaging them. Some people might call this "attacking," but it's actually just justified reproach. And simply being "gay" doesn't exempt a person from reasonable reprimand.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6923) 4 years ago

Fair enough.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

Thanks for reminding me of Fiona Apple; I forgot about her.

[–] ducksoup (3933) 4 years ago

>If you read Brando's autobiography, however, he didn't have a homosexual bone in his body.

Of course not. It's not a homosexual bone until you put it in another guy's body.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

Lol!

[–] Zilkin (401) 4 years ago

I agree part of it is probably jelaousy. Some people see that QT borrowed this from that and he used some borrowed movie making techniques and then they might think "I could have done the same thing but I'm not successful". That is where jelaousy comes from which is kind of ridiculous. QT did a lot of original stuff and inovating stuff in his movies too he did things other people didn't or couldn't replicate. So why be jealous of QT? I guess it is just professional jelaousy of sorts or indentifying with QT like u said.