Tarantino did not 'rip off' Wild at Heart

"Rip-off" is an overused word. I think Tarantino puts a lot of things in a blender then makes a new pastiche out of them, but without really adding anything new or original, or that comes from anywhere other than from movies he's seen. He's the top fan-boy director, but that's not the same as being a true auteur like Scorsese, Kubrick, or David Lynch.

This movie and "True Romance", which Tarantino wrote but didn't direct have a lot in common. But I don't think anybody ripped anybody off. They just used a lot of the same inspirations. And neither is necessarily typical of the director's respective works anyway.

Pretty much every director is 'ripping' some other director off. It's called influences and nearly all artists are influenced by what they've already experienced. Some are just better at hiding it than others or are able to add something new to it.

With Tarantino it is primarily his dialogue that brings some originality to the table. So as a director he may not be particularly original or in his general story telling but his writing style should be commended, especially his early screenplays up to and including Pulp Fiction.

His ability to write excellent dialogue if used on a film like Wild of Heart, could have elevated it a bit. Despite being only a few years older than Tarantino's movies, it has not aged quite as well and a few bits of dialogue seem a bit silly and are not things even these oddball characters would say. It is a weakness in Blue Velvet too. Don't get me wrong I love Blue Velvet but there were a couple of lines or so in that movie that were almost George Lucas bad, that in my mind make the film fall slightly short of perfection.

Ultimately it is not really fair to compare them in this way as directors and writers. They generally have different visual traits and mostly create different atmospheres. They both like writing about criminals or characters that behave outside of what is considered lawful or socially acceptable, but Tarantino does not focus on the weird in society like Lynch does. He tends to be dark and disturbing and far more critical of violence and crime. Crime tends not to pay in his films but not so much with Tarantino. Tarantino's characters may often act outside of the law but they are mostly 'normal' criminals. There will always be exceptions to this so anyone who reads this, don't quote a bizarre Tarantino character as I could list loads of Lynch ones.