I’ll go first. Mine is that I can’t stand the Deadpool movies. They are self aware and self referential to an obnoxious degree. It’s like being continually reminded that I am in a movie. I swear the success of that movie has directly lead to every blockbuster having to have a joke every 30 seconds

  • BeckonJM@lemmy.world
    71·
    11 months ago

    otherwise you don’t realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies.

    Isn’t that the definition of filmmaking? All movies are just collages of influences, style, and form. All art is a remix on previous forms.

    It’s okay to not like Tarantino, I don’t care much about that, but your argument doesn’t really hold up for me.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      5·
      11 months ago

      Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.

      It’s a bit like Andy Warhol’s Mona Lisa:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa

      Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it’s iconic, but it’s not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.

      People who haven’t watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.

      People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he’s Warhol. There’s an iconic scene, but it’s based on an original work, like Warhol’s Mona Lisa.

      There’s nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it’s ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol’s Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.

      But it’s a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn’t. That was Da Vinci. If you’re going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he’s a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.