comment #1

Balthazar says ...

Good point. It's odd that nobody else has had this. Did ScriptGirl botch this?

comment #2

Richardson says ...

Does this mean that the Weinsteins are not producing it? I'd be surprised if they teamed up with Miramax.

comment #3

calraigh says ...

Ain't it Cool reported it last week as well. Fairly conspicuous blog piece, I'm surprised nobody picked up on it?

comment #4

moorish says ...

Rewatched Pulp Fiction for the first time in awhile last night.

Remember when QT made films with actual characters in, rather than caricatures? When his scripts (even if the movies were too long - I'm looking at you, Jackie Brown) seemed sleek and immacualtely constructed? Nothing he's done as a dramatist has topped Samuel L. Jackson's "moment of clarity", as articulated to Tim Roth, at the end of that film.

THAT was genius.

comment #5

Balthazar says ...

And have no doubt Jackson hit a home run with that performance, too. He sold that speech in electrifying fashion, and his Oscar nomination was well-deserved.

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

moorish: "Remember when QT made films with actual characters in, rather than caricatures?"

No. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZKgptV4GmQ&feature=related

comment #7

Rothchild says ...

D.Z.,

You're a huge cunt.

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

why no notice of this deal in Variety? You know how press shy Harvey is.

I've heard that QT will shoot the entire film on the Green screens in Austin, TX with Rick Baker doing the make up so that Sam Jackson plays everyone - including Hitler.

comment #9

CinemaPhreek says ...

"Nothing he's done as a dramatist has topped Samuel L. Jackson's 'moment of clarity'"

Of course that begs the question, was that QT or Roger Avery or both? Does anyone know the breakdown of what each contributed to those stories? (wasn't the entire Walked "Gold watch Speech" Avery's, for example?)

comment #10

Balthazar says ...

QT's script work elsewhere tells me that he was at least capable of having been the one who wrote SJ's speech. Whether he did or not, who can know?

comment #11

aaron says ...

...from Tarantino's NY Times article on William Witney's THE GOLDEN STALLION, from a few years back. He offers some crucial commentary on what he was going for in the killing-off-major characters 'unceremoniously':

"''I was showing 'Paratroop Command' to Peter Bogdanovich one day, and there comes this moment in the film where he goes, like, hey, wait a minute, what the heck is happening?,'' Mr. Tarantino says. ''These guys, who you've been getting to know throughout the movie, suddenly start dying. And I don't mean a big, glamorous cinema death. They're just dropping like flies, unceremoniously. It's so realistic. You know that it was a movie made by a guy who had been there. William Witney was in the Marines in World War II for something like five years.''

comment #12

CinemaPhreek says ...

correction: Walken.

comment #13

JD says ...

The Tarantino backlash got old 12 years ago. If you don't like his movies, fine... but why keep harping on this? He clearly has very rigid, clearly defined philosophies about filmmaking that he's thought a great deal about. Just because these philosophies may differ from yours -- or those of most Hollywood filmmakers -- doesn't mean they're inherently wrong. The criticism has gotten so pety at this point, ammounting to little more than, "His movies aren't conventional enough" or "Why isn't he making tame, 'mature,' prestige pictures." It's like complaining that Sex Pistols aren't making folk albums.

comment #14

Richardson says ...

I like that DZ's link is called "Who Do You Think You're Fooling?" when Tarantino has always been open about the fact that he, in his own words, steals from every movie he sees.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

JD: Actually, it's the Tarantino hype which got old 12 years ago. And the reason I keep harping on him is because his only philosophy is to cut and paste.

Richardson: He hasn't been open when it comes to City on Fire...

comment #16

Richardson says ...

It also amuses me that, unless this Mike White is the same guy who did 'School of Rock' (et al), this guy's whole "career" has been making movies which literally just cut together excerpts from other movies, putting them together in such a way as to make a statement which is different than the statement original intended by the artists, and completely changed by the new context... and yet doesn't notice that that's exactly what he is criticizing Tarantino for doing.

comment #17

Richardson says ...

"He hasn't been open when it comes to City on Fire..."

The only thing I have seen where it is claimed that he hasn't seen it is Kurt Loder describing something he claims Tarantino said. since, at the time all the way forward to today, Tarantino was completely upfront about it, it is quite reasonable to assume that the comment Loder ascribes to Tarantino came from one of Tarantino's publicists and not Tarantino himself.

comment #18

Richardson says ...

I hadn't watched "Who Do You Think You're Fooling?" before. It's pretty amazing that, so far, more than three minutes in, there hasn't been a single shot or line used in 'Reservoir Dogs' (though "Bill! They killed Bill!" is pretty funny). They just use lines that Mr. White had to pretend that the action being shown is exactly like what White is describing, and try to ignore that it's a HUGE stylistic choice to not actually show the diamond store heist in a heist movie. At least the follow up compared actual similar shots. I'm actually amazed, after all the hype, how little 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'City on Fire' have in common.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

Finished it. Putting aside the need for an editor to cut it down so they get to the point quicker, it's interesting. If you ignore the interesting stylistic choices Tarantino made as a director to tell the story in a more cinematic way, and if you ignore the way that he wrote the characters in an interesting way with actual human relationships, then there are a few similarities. They're just incredibly superficial, and have nothing to do with what makes the movie good.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "this guy's whole "career" has been making movies which literally just cut together excerpts from other movies, putting them together in such a way as to make a statement which is different than the statement original intended by the artists, and completely changed by the new context... and yet doesn't notice that that's exactly what he is criticizing Tarantino for doing."

Haven't seen the guy's work, but QT doesn't make statements, just money.

"since, at the time all the way forward to today, Tarantino was completely upfront about it, "

No he hasn't, or I wouldn't be harping about it.

"it is quite reasonable to assume that the comment Loder ascribes to Tarantino came from one of Tarantino's publicists and not Tarantino himself."

That's because QT has never personally said that COF inspired Reservoir Dogs. They tried to argue that he did in the commentary, but no one proved it.

"and try to ignore that it's a HUGE stylistic choice to not actually show the diamond store heist in a heist movie."

It's a choice predicated on the fact that QT likes to talk endlessly to compensate for his inability to shoot action scenes. We've seen it finally fall apart in Death Proof.

"I'm actually amazed, after all the hype, how little 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'City on Fire' have in common."

Except for the same stories and gun-fights, sure.

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

In Fargo, released in 1996, Steve Buscemi dies by wood chipper. In Carl Hiaasen's Skin Tight, published seven years earlier, a character meets his death (hello, death) the same way. Plagiarism, homage, or coincidence? I say a Congressional investigation, at the very least, is called for.

comment #22

T. Holly says ...

Did not AICN pick it up from her? If she's wrong, I so want to see her repent a bit.

comment #23

CinemaPhreek says ...

Is it just me or does anyone else think that we would have been spared years (literally at this point) of these posts if Tarantino had simply been kind enough to give D.Z. a reach around when he had him bent over his desk back when D.Z. was his assistant?

Because, dude, you are such his bitch...

comment #24

Rothchild says ...

You think he avoided the heist because of an Inability to shoot action scenes?

YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND. The House of Blue Leaves sequence is one of the most accomplished pieces of action cinema ever. It was incredibly clever to never show the heist in Reservoir Dogs. It's like the shark in Jaws. It becomes scarier, bigger, and more intense when you only hear people talking about it. You think that wasn't intentional?

I fucking wish someone would take your keyboard away from you.

comment #25

Doctor Freudstein says ...

I have both CITY ON FIRE and RESERVOIR DOGS on my DVD shelf. Here is what has always driven me crazy about this particular topic: it tends to quickly devolve into a majority dismissal of CITY ON FIRE, often by people who haven't seen it. We're talking about a first-class Hong Kong noir here, folks. RESERVOIR DOGS wouldn't exist without it. Now that doesn't invalidate Tarantino's film any more than the 1951 THING invalidates the 1982 THING, but I doubt there are a cadre of Carpenter fans in denial regarding Hawks' influence.

I'm not pissed about it like D.Z. but I understand where he's coming from.

In my experience, viewers who are already familiar with the sequences and stylistic traditions Tarantino is referencing or borrowing from process the films very differently from those who have not. That's not a knock or a hipper-than-thou stance, just common sense.

comment #26

Richardson says ...

Freud - I'm not knocking 'City on Fire'; I'm knocking that short video which was edited together so poorly that it lends creedence to the claim that people exaggerate the similarities between 'City on Fire' and 'Reservoir Dogs'. It goes four minutes before there is *anything* similar shown.

comment #27

Richardson says ...

"No he hasn't, or I wouldn't be harping about it."

That's a flawed premise; you have repeatedly proven for all to see that you continue to harp on things as "unproven" long after every rational person in the conversation has agreed that it is proven.

For instance, if I now point out that 'Crystal Skull' is a HUGE moneymaker, you will argue that point with me.

"That's because QT has never personally said that COF inspired Reservoir Dogs. They tried to argue that he did in the commentary, but no one proved it. "

I love it when you bring up "they", proving that you have had these conversations innumerable times before and refused to accept proof. If you won't accept Tarantino's commentary track, what will you accept?

comment #28

Doctor Freudstein says ...

"Freud - I'm not knocking 'City on Fire'"

Fair enough, but...

"If you ignore the interesting stylistic choices Tarantino made as a director to tell the story in a more cinematic way, and if you ignore the way that he wrote the characters in an interesting way with actual human relationships, then there are a few similarities."

...surely you can see how one might interpret the above as a dismissal of CITY ON FIRE in favor of RESERVOIR DOGS?

comment #29

Balthazar says ...

His work on the House of Blue Leaves scene makes me wonder why there don't seem to be a really huge WW2 throwdown battle set piece in the Inglorious Bastards script. ... There are some terrifically tense scenes but nothing action-wise that screams SHOW STOPPER. (Though I guess he's left himself plenty of leeway for how he wants to shoot and edit the final scene in the theater)

comment #30

Richardson says ...

Freud - sure, poorly worded. To be clear, that is derived solely from that actual video, not the movies themselves, because I assume that the video (with a clearly up-front agenda) is going to be putting in *everything* which is remotely comprable.

If there is a case for the actual characters in 'City on Fire' being lifted by 'Reservoir Dogs', I have never seen it argued anywhere. People always describe the similarities as "oh, this one guy, he's an undercover cop! And then his friend, the robber, is upset when he finds out!" Those aren't characters, those are one-line descriptions. The people in 'Dogs' certainly have more depth than that. But based solely on the clips that "Mike White" chose for his little expose, 'City on Fire' appears to have characters which *are* that shallow, while 'Reservoir Dogs' has, even in the brief clips they show, actual acting and emotion going on.

However, I do give the benefit of the doubt to 'City on Fire'. My actual assumption, from viewing that, is that if they were to show character development from 'City on Fire', it would hurt their argument, because the characters are more different than they are trying to let on.

I do believe that the choices Tarantino made are more cinematic (at least when comparing the direct "How 'City on Fire' tells this part of the story vs. How 'Reservoir Dogs' does" -- maybe they left a lot out on the 'City on Fire' side), but that's more of a positive for Tarantino rather than a negative for 'City on Fire'.

comment #31

Richardson says ...

Balthazar - I've seen him say that one of his big motivations for 'Kill Bill' was to push himself as a director, to see if he could actually handle those big action scenes. Perhaps he now feels satisfied that he can and doesn't feel the need to go completely overboard. Or maybe they're just not described on paper but will be shot over long periods of time (the opening of 'Private Ryan' was apparently very sketchy on the page, and Spielberg just kept shooting more and more stuff). I don't know -- I decided to skip the script and just see the movie, because I never like his scripts but always enjoy his movies.

comment #32

T. Holly says ...

Schlock has a new definition: seven years, as many as ninety five titles. Eat it script girl.

comment #33

Doctor Freudstein says ...

Richardson -- Thanks for the clarification.

I first saw CITY OF FIRE at an Austin film festival well after its Hong Kong release, but still a couple of years before RESERVOIR DOGS came out. My thought was that the latter was essentially a loose, unofficial remake of the former's third act. The execution is very different and clearly its own thing, but the themes and progression of plot points remain remarkably similar.

Now that did not necessarily detract from my appreciation of the movie (which, as I said, I like a lot and own on DVD) but I was disappointed when Tarantino initially denied having seen it.

That said, I was even more disappointed by the generally dismissive reaction toward CITY ON FIRE by my fellow film buffs as news of the similarities spread. Opinions largely formed only within the context of a comparison to RESERVOIR DOGS, as though CITY ON FIRE as a film had no other intrinsic cultural value.

White's short, in its own way, also advances this thesis: "but, mostly, it recalled Ringo Lam's less than spectacular 1987 film CITY ON FIRE."

CITY ON FIRE was nominated for ten Hong Kong film awards, won two (best actor and director) and performed well enough at the local box office, finishing twelfth for the year.

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Idiot: "In Carl Hiaasen's Skin Tight, published seven years earlier, a character meets his death (hello, death) the same way. Plagiarism, homage, or coincidence?"

Actually, the story in "Fargo" comes off like an urban legend, so "Skin Tight" didn't necessarily get the twist first. Plus the death by industrial machine is a common gimmick, and they even used it in Hellboy 2. But I'll argue that the Coens were working in the industry for a lot longer than QT, and that they've done films which were solely associated with them. Thus, they're entitled to borrow once in a while. QT made his entire career out of copying, however.

Phreek: "Is it just me or does anyone else think that we would have been spared years (literally at this point) of these posts if Tarantino had simply been kind enough to give D.Z. a reach around when he had him bent over his desk back when D.Z. was his assistant?"

You'd be spared these posts, if QT just gave credit where it was due.

Roth: "YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND. The House of Blue Leaves sequence is one of the most accomplished pieces of action cinema ever."

Can you tell me what happens in it in detail without having to pull out a dvd? Also, that's not his action sequence.

"It was incredibly clever to never show the heist in Reservoir Dogs. It's like the shark in Jaws."

No, the shark in Jaws works, because I care about the people being killed. I don't really even feel for the undercover cop, to be honest.

Richardson: "you have repeatedly proven for all to see that you continue to harp on things as "unproven" long after every rational person in the conversation has agreed that it is proven."

It hasn't been proven, though. There is not one effing quote on the Internet or in print where QT says that RD was inspired by COF.

"For instance, if I now point out that 'Crystal Skull' is a HUGE moneymaker, you will argue that point with me."

It made money, but it's not huge, unless you count WW gross.

"I love it when you bring up "they", proving that you have had these conversations innumerable times before and refused to accept proof. If you won't accept Tarantino's commentary track, what will you accept?"

I won't accept it, because it's not on the commentary track. And I've talked to people who own it, and they can't find it, either.

"If there is a case for the actual characters in 'City on Fire' being lifted by 'Reservoir Dogs', I have never seen it argued anywhere. People always describe the similarities as "oh, this one guy, he's an undercover cop! And then his friend, the robber, is upset when he finds out!" Those aren't characters, those are one-line descriptions."

And the characters in his movies are one-line descriptions, too. But hey, you also seem to ignore the details of the heist, and the same dramatic pauses.

comment #35

Richardson says ...

"But hey, you also seem to ignore the details of the heist,"

Because the details are proven, within the video, to be different; for instance, Mr. White's description of what Mr. Blonde did is almost completely different than what is shown in 'City on Fire', even with clever editing ... Mr White talks about crowd control" while they show two guys in 'City on Fire' standing outside the door (thus, they are watching the door, not watching the crowd in the store)... there appear to be less robbers, and their plan is diferent enough. I mean, yeah, you're right, they're stealing diamonds from a store, and one of them kills somebody. But surely you agree that 'City on Fire' is not the first movie to feature an elaborate diamond heist in which somebody is accidentally killed. Right?

"and the same dramatic pauses."

Since there are no dramatic pauses in common between 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'City on Fire' -- at least, as far as those clips show -- I assume you are talking about the Ezekial 25:17 speech. To which I can only say, clean out your ears, because those pauses where *clearly* edited in to accentuate the points. You can hear the sound drop out in all the spots where they added pauses.

But don't let facts interrupt your misguided, but hilarious, crusade..

"It made money, but it's not huge, unless you count WW gross."

Thank you for that.

comment #36

Richardson says ...

"Can you tell me what happens in it in detail without having to pull out a dvd?

It's been a while since I sat and watched it, but I believe that she enters, and threatens Lucy Liu with her sword, and then a bunch of Liu's bodyguards, the Crazy 88s, come in, and Uma fights off about 20 people downsairs, variously killing or de-limbing them with her superior fighting technique, at which point more of the 88s come in and try to surround her, so she rushes upstairs, fights off a few of them, I think that's when she pulls the dude's eye out and it goes black and white, then they all run up the stairs surrounding her and there's a fight on the banister, then she jumps back downstairs and gets surrounded by a tight circle, but she stays low to the ground and fights them all off, killing the majority of them. Then, at the end, there's one guy wearing a Charlie Brown shirt left, and she feels bad for him because he's young, so she takes his sword and chases him off, and then walks out amid the bleeding wounded to find Liu outside.

I'm surprised you don't remember it, it's a really elaborate sequence with a lot of fun action in it. Though, for my money, I prefer her one-on-one cramped fight with Daryl Hannah and the early fight with Vivica Fox, the House of Blue Leaves is pretty cool based solely on the volume of it.

"Also, that's not his action sequence."

Your entire argument is contingent on your statement that Tarantino can't shoot action. When somebody points out a perfect counter-example, you say that he just stole that, which then begs the question -- if that's true, why didn't he steal the action scene which was shot in 'City on Fire'? I know you're an idiot and all, but you should at least try to think your idiocies through to be more consistent.

comment #37

Richardson says ...

"No, the shark in Jaws works, because I care about the people being killed. I don't really even feel for the undercover cop, to be honest."

Yeah, anonymous swimmer girl and guy-who-gets-chased-by-a-dock are extremely well drawn and memorable characters.

comment #38

T. S. Idiot says ...

I would write my grandmother, if she was still alive, and tell her that I made a joke, and DZ took it seriously and corrected me. She'd say, "That boy needs to get out more."

comment #39

Richardson says ...

Freud - I was trying to get to you, but I kept seeing more hilarity in DZ's post...

"I was disappointed when Tarantino initially denied having seen it."

I still think that that must've been his publicists, because it's so out of character for him, and yet seems exactly like what a publicist or agent would say if asked for an immediate comment. Is there any video of him actually saying it, or is it solely based on Kurt Loder?

If nothing else, can you think of a single public statement from Tarantino where he has ever denied seeing any film in existence?

"That said, I was even more disappointed by the generally dismissive reaction toward CITY ON FIRE by my fellow film buffs as news of the similarities spread. Opinions largely formed only within the context of a comparison to RESERVOIR DOGS, as though CITY ON FIRE as a film had no other intrinsic cultural value."

That definitely makes sense. I think the problem is, it's generally only brought up in the context of 'Reservoir Dogs'. Even the packaging on the DVD references 'Reservoir Dogs'. It's likely that, at least in this country, more people have seen it due to the 'Dogs' connection than for other reasons.

I think the problem is, it's generally brought into the conversations as if it's some trump card, as if it proves that 'Reservoir Dogs' isn't a great movie, as if the *plot* is what makes it a great movie. (That old Ebert chestnut applies -- "it's not what the movie is about, it's how it is about it.") So, when the movie is brought in as a trump card, and people haven't seen it, they tend to dismiss the movie itself quickly, rather than just dismissing the argument itself as shallow and sidestepping the movie, which doesn't actually matter to the conversation of what makes 'Reservoir Dogs' a great movie.

comment #40

KeithNYC says ...

Moorish,

I also revisited "Pulp Fiction" recently and was reminded how truly great it is. It is the little, quiet moments that make it great: Jules "I'm trying real hear to be the shepard", Marcellus wave goodbye to Butch, Vince and Mia's goodbye handshake.

I have a theory about Tarantino. There was a long piece about Tarantino published just before "Kill Bill" was released. I can't recall if it was Vanity Fair or Vogue but I believe Jeff talked about it when it came out. Tarantino apparently holed himself up in his home, excessively using drugs because he was so upset about his fan's and many critics reaction to "Jackie Brown" (ironic since its only grown in respect since its release over 10 years ago). Tarantino delved into more mature territory with "Jackie Brown" and he was burned. I think that may be a reason QT is stuck in a cartoon world while other directors like PTA have passed him by.

Now, I also distinctly remember Jeff posted a link to some QT statements right after 9/11. Apparently, QT had a private screening of the greatest movie building explosions a month or so after 9/11. To me, this was a little disturbing and all but proves QT only sees the world through the eyes of movies.

JEFF, please find these posts. I know I'm not crazy and I remember them well.

As for "Basterds", it seems like QT is still stuck in a cartoony world. What a shame.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "Because the details are proven, within the video, to be different; for instance, Mr. White's description of what Mr. Blonde did is almost completely different than what is shown in 'City on Fire', even with clever editing ..."

No, it's not different. It just has them inserting curse words into the incident.

"Mr White talks about crowd control" while they show two guys in 'City on Fire' standing outside the door (thus, they are watching the door, not watching the crowd in the store)..."

It's the same job.

"But surely you agree that 'City on Fire' is not the first movie to feature an elaborate diamond heist in which somebody is accidentally killed. Right?"

No, but it's the first to have a socio-political context.

"Since there are no dramatic pauses in common between 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'City on Fire' -- at least, as far as those clips show --"

I guess you weren't paying attention to those stand-offs with the guns.

"but I believe that she enters, and threatens Lucy Liu with her sword, and then a bunch of Liu's bodyguards, the Crazy 88s, come in, and Uma fights off about 20 people downsairs, variously killing or de-limbing them with her superior fighting technique,"

But that's not really fighting; it's just mutilating. There's a difference. By that logic, you can call Brain Dead an action film.

"so she rushes upstairs, fights off a few of them, I think that's when she pulls the dude's eye out and it goes black and white, then they all run up the stairs surrounding her and there's a fight on the banister, then she jumps back downstairs and gets surrounded by a tight circle,"

Ok, it's gory and she runs and jumps, but where is the actual combat?

"but she stays low to the ground and fights them all off, killing the majority of them."

She doesn't actually encounter any resistance, even though they could easily jump and stab her from above.
Yet you still consider it an action scene for some reason.

"Then, at the end, there's one guy wearing a Charlie Brown shirt left, and she feels bad for him because he's young, so she takes his sword and chases him off, "

She spanks him, too, but I guess that's also "awesome" for some reason.

"I'm surprised you don't remember it, it's a really elaborate sequence with a lot of fun action in it."

Probably because the camera was jammed so close to the action that it looked blurry and fake.

"Though, for my money, I prefer her one-on-one cramped fight with Daryl Hannah and the early fight with Vivica Fox,"

The Hannah confrontation wasn't a fight. They just run at each other briefly. I will agree with you on the Fox fight, though, since that's the only scene I could legitimately classify under action. But that clearly was Yuen Woo Ping's work, and had nothing to do with QT.

"Your entire argument is contingent on your statement that Tarantino can't shoot action. you say that he just stole that, "

That's because he can't shoot his own action scenes without ripping off everyone else.

"if that's true, why didn't he steal the action scene which was shot in 'City on Fire'?"

Um, he did steal it.

"Yeah, anonymous swimmer girl and guy-who-gets-chased-by-a-dock are extremely well drawn and memorable characters."

They're not deep, but I can feel for them as a fellow swimmer who's been in the ocean. I can't feel for a guy who sounds like a girl when he talks, and who's stupid enough to get shot for a criminal organization he's trying to bust, just because he gets along with one of the goons.

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

Keith: I remember when the only thing he was concerned about after 9/11 was the Wachowskis making movies. He also cursed out Keanu for being nice enough to see Kill Bill.

comment #43

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "I still think that that must've been his publicists, because it's so out of character for him, and yet seems exactly like what a publicist or agent would say if asked for an immediate comment. Is there any video of him actually saying it, or is it solely based on Kurt Loder?"

Whether or not he did say it, he didn't mention COF in the same context as RD. That's all that matters. If he just effing says it, I could care less after that.

comment #44

Richardson says ...

"If he just effing says it, I could care less after that."

Dude, you go off on Tarantino at least once a week off of the flimiest of excuses, and all you want is to know that he acknowledges that 'City of Fire' is one of the many movies he stole from?

That's hilarious, even for you.

comment #45

Richardson says ...

"He also cursed out Keanu for being nice enough to see Kill Bill."

I would love to see a reputable source on that, that sounds pretty funny, but I assume it's more DZ ramblings.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

"Yet you still consider it an action scene for some reason."

Yes, it's action choreographed in a highly stylized, not particularly realistic way. Like any number of Asian movies, the ones you regularly accuse it of ripping off, and you do consider *those* action movies for some reason.

"Action" is a pretty wide category.

"By that logic, you can call Brain Dead an action film."

'Brain Dead' is about zombies, which automatically makes it qualify for "horror". It's like that old joke, "You just fuck *one* chicken..."

The thing about Tarantino that just calling him "thief" doesn't give him credit for is that he casts such a wide net with his thievery, and distills it all through his cinematic savant brain, that what comes out is recognizably his own even if individual moments are taken. So, yes, this scene is influence by splatter-comedies like 'Brain Dead' just as much as the Asian martial arts movies. It's not typical action, it's ridiculously bloody to a laughable extent. That's what makes it a fun scene. It seems annoyingly pedantic to argue about whether the scene qualifies as "action" or not, because who cares what you call it? It's about whether you enjoy it or not. I'm sorry Tarantino doesn't fit into your tiny boxes.

comment #47

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "and all you want is to know that he acknowledges that 'City of Fire' is one of the many movies he stole from?"

Yep. I don't like the guy, but if he just does name-drops, and will make me content. If Lucas can acknowledge Kurosawa, then QT can acknowledge Lam.

"Yes, it's action choreographed in a highly stylized, not particularly realistic way. Like any number of Asian movies,"

No, other Asian movies do actually come off more realistic than Kill Bill, since: 1) They use real martial arts, and 2) They use real weapons research.

"The thing about Tarantino that just calling him "thief" doesn't give him credit for is that he casts such a wide net with his thievery,"

That makes it worse, not better.

"that what comes out is recognizably his own even if individual moments are taken."

The only parts which would be considered his own are the curse words and the pointless monologues.

comment #48

saranie says ...

You all have said it so well. I’m not the best person to respond to this question. just tell me a tall dating site ~~~Tallmeet----com,. many views , good pictures , video and so on about people , even they are celebrities....

comment #49

Richardson says ...

But Tarantino frequently acknowledges Lam as one of the directors who has had influence on him and cites 'City on Fire' as a great movie. You said that you specifically need him to specifically say what everybody already knows -- that's what makes it funny.

comment #50

Richardson says ...

"No, other Asian movies do actually come off more realistic than Kill Bill, since: 1) They use real martial arts, and 2) They use real weapons research."

That's a pretty restrictive statement. So Asian martial arts movies with deliberately stylized martial arts don't count as action movies? or they do, so long as they can accurately reference sword names?

You're funny.

comment #51

Doctor Freudstein says ...

Richardson -- As for Tarantino, he says he's dying to see the Hong Kong original is indeed the dodge I'm referring to.

I'd rather not get into debating intangibles like whether or not a quote attributed to Tarantino came from Tarantino himself or his handlers. Your scenario makes sense, but there is no way to say for sure the process by which the quote came to air on MTV, or whether it was with or without Tarantino's approval. Idle speculation only confuses the matter. I might just as easily ask you to produce footage in which he confirms he was misquoted. We could go round and round. Poster with the most stamina gets the final word. Not interested.

The MTV quote was one sore spot for this Lam fan. Another was out of all the influences Tarantino mentioned during the DOGS publicity tour, I never heard CITY come up. Given the debt I felt DOGS owed the film, yeah, it was disappointing.

I am a reader of interviews, not a collector. I cannot produce an arsenal of quotes to back this up, but the first time I remember Tarantino acknowledge CITY was in a print interview after DOGS had finished its theatrical run. He said something to the effect of it being a great movie and mentioned that he had the poster on his wall. When I read that the disappointment (not condemnation) I described dissipated. Sure, it would've been nice had he acknowledged the film while DOGS was still in theatres, but, hey, better late than never.

Here's how I see it. Anyone with their head screwed on straight ought to be able to see that Tarantino borrowed quite extensively from the third act of CITY ON FIRE. Similarly, anyone ought to be able to see that he brought a lot to the table as well. Like or dislike, the results are much more than just an appropriation of Lam's movie. As a fan of both films who followed the release of DOGS with great interest, it seemed to me that Tarantino, for whatever reason, was initially cagey about the connection.

Regrettable, but, IMO, hardly the end of all things.

Of course, none of this was the thrust of my original post. The point was that one need not tear down CITY -- a very good movie that stands on its own two feet just fine -- to build up DOGS. And if you must, at least see the damn movie first. Not too much to ask, I think...

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "But Tarantino frequently acknowledges Lam as one of the directors who has had influence on him and cites 'City on Fire' as a great movie."

He's never name-dropped Lam, or cited COF as the inspiration for RD.

"So Asian martial arts movies with deliberately stylized martial arts don't count as action movies? or they do, so long as they can accurately reference sword names?"

If you're referring to wuxia, that's more like fantasy and adventure with action included. If you're referring to movies where they give fancy names to attacks, they're still action movies, because the draw is on the fight scenes.

comment #53

Richardson says ...

"He's never name-dropped Lam"

False.

"I've got the poster right here. That's Danny Lee. Ringo Lam is like my second, after Jackie Chan, third favorite of all the Hong Kong directors." - Quentin Tarantino,The Village Voice 10/25/94 No. 43, pg. 31.

"or cited COF as the inspiration for RD"

False.

http://www.slate.com/id/2088322/

"Tarantino admits being influenced by City on Fire, but he denies ripping it off."

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: That's not really name-dropping, since he ranks so low on the list. And the Slate thing does not have a quote from him.

comment #55

Richardson says ...

Whew! I was almost worried that you would actually follow through on your own previous statements. I wasn't counting on your incredible level of nonsensical parsing.