well thanx alot for your opinion jrichards. i really appreciate the comments you hypocrytical bastard. how am i justified in saying this? well let me tell you a little story about an experience i had with a screenplay of mine not too long ago. i sent my screenplay to a guy to read and tell me what he thought. turns out he couldnt understand a fucin bit of it (go figure).it turns out it wasnt in the proper "format." guess what he told me to do to improve my skills? get this, read someone else's screenplay of a film ive seen then use its screenplay as a basis to writing mine. what a great idea right. i read someone elses screeplay and learn the proper format to write my own. and you wonder why there are no original ideas. of course when i read that screenplay my idea changes into the type of film that was made from the screenplay i used to learn proper format from. so there is the answer to why ppl are so unoriginal. thats what they are told to do when they are young by the more experienced filmmakers. and they listen. because we are told to listen to the film gods of this site (ei. tizzy) because they know what they are doing. dont get me wrong i appreciate the help. but to turn it around and blame student filmmakers for being unoriginal and cloaners when you dont even understand why, makes you a jackass. hell the guy i sent my screenplay to even told me to watch another film that he thought mine mught be similar to to help me. so can you see what is happening here? if you tell me to copy at the start of the filmming process, what are the odds that that will continue? figure it out yet jrichards? besides you dont have to worry about me being the future of american films. im canadian so you can get agood nights sleep tonight knowing that someone like me isnt on your side of the boarder.

right. (internet. all kinds of idiots are here. not just american idiots).

Hill, if you and others here are the future of world film; then we're fuced!

Also thanks for the response but I wasn't looking for excuses for unoriginality from you guys........

J_Richards, I don't want to go over the edge, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Unoriginality? Film gods? Worshiping dead people? What is this crap you keep talking about? Nobody is completely original, and I don't think you were saying they were. But it's human nature to have idols we look up to.

Just because someone likes Kubrick or Tarantino or Spielburg or anyone out there doesn't mean they are copying their ideas. They are learning! Don't tell me you figured out everything you know today on your own. Someone guided you through walking, talking, writing, and even taking a crap. You didn't steal their ideas. And neither are we.

You shouldn't say if we are the future of the film world then we are "fuced", because it is exactly the opposite. People like you, who have a negative attitude and act like they never had a childhood.

Trust me, any idea you can possibly think of is related to someone else's infulence.

"Don't breathe or I'll kill you!"

pgPyro,

I see your point; there certainly is a strain of negativity in this discussion that does film no good at all.

Still though, while J_Richards is certainly negative, he's not the greatest offender. To me the people that hurt film in general, and the credibility of this discussion in particular, are people like cypher whose whole contribution is to say that I'm stupid just because I disagree with him.

The fact is that Pulp Fiction is a bad film; I believe that. It is made even worse by the fact that it colors a lot of what people think, feel and do in independent film today.

So rather than argue about who is a better debater (since none of what we say here directly effects the state of film anyway) why not have a real discussion?

I'm happy to be disagreed with, but it seems sad that the people that think hat Pulp Fiction is a good film have nothing to say except that I am stupid and so is everyone who tries to weigh in on my side.

So, In short (heh heh), let's hear it. As long as we're discussing the worst films ever, let's hear what everyone thinks about Pulp Fiction.

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

When PULP FICTION came out, I didn't watch it from a technical standpoint, but just to see it. It's been awhile (and I don't want to rent it), but I remember that overall I enjoyed the movie because it was different, but there were also a couple of parts where it kind of slowed down. I was also waiting for 'something' to happen (I don't know what), but it never did.

For me, the movie falls into the "just another movie" category, but it has more of a favorable memory than a bad one.

And by the way, I try to ignore the flaming blather and read what makes sense. I also agree - that lack of debate, without getting personal is sometimes rare around here!

Mark M
Scooter Productions

Pulp Fiction.

Why is it so awesome and acclaimed?

Well....it's different and original. Yes, I know a lot of you are gonna go, "Well it ripped off that one scene from that one movie" The point is....which scene is better? Tarantino took scenes and situations from lesser known movies and turned them around into something even greater. I'm not saying Pulp Fiction is an entire rip-off, I'm not saying it's a rip-off at all in fact, it's just some scenes are not all that original...but Tarantino took those scenes and made them great, which I think is ok.

It's not like some movies, *cough* signs *cough* which take situations and ideas from other movies and basically don't change anything to make it original. Pulp Fiction took a few situations and made them better.

Quentin Tarantino once said something about the Jules & Vincent characters in the begining scene. HE said something like it starts like a Arnold Swarteneger film with some thugs that are hired to kill him, but in my (Tarantino) movie we follow the thugs AFTER they kill the guys and see what their life is like. This is called character development. Something you won't find in "PEARL HARBOR".

A lot of you say you don't like Pulp Fiction because it was different. what the fuk is that supposed to mean? You don't like it cause it wasn't like all other movies? That's ignorant. Most movies that come out suck. Saying you don't like a movie cause it was different is just stupid in my eye.

Why I like.....no LOVE Pulp Fiction. I grew up in a household where my parents knew nothing about good movies. I have probably seen every stupid movie from the '90s. Then a couple years ago when I was in 8th grade my dad was sitting on the couch watching a movie on TV. That movie I later found out was Pulp Fiction. I only saw the last half hour (the rape scene to the end) and I was like "Whoa" A movie has to be be fukin awesome if you like it when it's edited on TV. It was so amazing. The camera positioning, the characters, the dialogue. It was so awesome.

A couple months later I saw it in its entirity. Fukin off the hook. I loved the characters. These are people you are supposed to look down upon in society (druggies & killers) and yet you like them. This movie shows you they are just like everyone else, except they sniff a line and pop a cap every once and awile. The reason I felt for them is through their dialogue...they just talk about stuff thats interesting. And don't say you can't stand the dialogue. The dialogue is incredibly natural. This is how people talk. When was the last time you watched an episode of Seinfeld?

The other great aspect of the film is the chronological order. This was not just decided out of the blue by Tarantino. THis plays a huge part in the film....the way the irony and foreshadowing goes into effect is beautifull. Take for example int the begining of the chapeter/story "VINCENT VEGA AND MARCELLUS WALLACE'S WIFE" in this scene we meet Bruce Willis' character Butch....when Vincent arrives him and Butch get into a littl stare down verbal fight. This is stopped by Marcellus calling Vincent over....now skip forward to the scene where Butch goes to get his watch.....and Vincent is staking out his, Butch's, apartment....the table's have turned. Tarantino called this " guest starring " Butch was a guest star in Vincent's story and now vice versa....only Butch kills Vincent - which BTW was probably one of the most awesome death sequences with tension before it - which is broken by a toaster -

If the film wasn't all mixed up chronologically....it wouldn't be as exciting. Tarantino IS a genius and master with dialogue.

PLus he won an Oscar for best original screenplay, was nominated for best picture, and John Travolta and Uma Thurman were both nominated for best actor & actress.

4 even more, since I sometimes don't make sense...read this article by Roger Ebert....it is really interesting.

Flypaper, I have to go, so I'll make this short.

You are doing film no good yourself. You mentioned that anybody that liked Pulp Fiction had nothing to say at all? So using your reasoning, I could say that just because you don't like the same kind of movies as me, you have got to be mentally ill and have no reason for existance.

Cypher said you were stupid and to go away because you disagreed with him, right? You just did the same thing. Why don't you think about what you are saying for a while, and you can get a lot farther in life.

Bah humbug.

"Don't breathe or I'll kill you!"

I really don't care if you don't like it, Pulp, or not....it's just....give a fukin reason....don't say shi t like, "I don't like it because it was different"

Anaconda was the worst movie of all time I am sure. This was what I like to call movie sin! Oh, and that ****in' waste of money Glitter. I thought it was a porn flick with Mariah Carrey...But no, instead of getting nude, she tried to act!! What the hell was she thinking!

"Pain is temporary, Film is forever"-Peter Jackson

I'm sorry. I really am trying to keep things civil here. i could be a tough guy on a buletin board too. But It doesn't get the discussion anywhere, plus it shows people's weakness.
Let's move on, none of this is personal, we're just talking about movies.

you said, "You mentioned that anybody that liked Pulp Fiction had nothing to say at all? So using your reasoning, I could say that just because you don't like the same kind of movies as me, you have got to be mentally ill and have no reason for existance. "

but I didn't say anything about denying your existance or anybody else's for that matter. That's just made up. Come on.

All I said was let's have a real discussion about mvies with using personal attacks. Let's just try it. I didn't attack anyone, and I don't think I have to.

you also said, "Cypher said you were stupid and to go away because you disagreed with him, right? You just did the same thing. Why don't you think about what you are saying for a while, and you can get a lot farther in life."

I didn't say any of that. on the contrary, I invited people to disagree with me, respectfully. I didn't dismiss Cypher because he disagreed with me, I dismissed him because he was acting like an a**.

Bah humbug.

Peace Love.

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

Let me get something straight here for the slow, i was JOKING. That's my sense of humour. I wasn't going to start a discussion because this argument has been covered numerous times and is rather one-sided, so there is no point.

Good day.

Your request about saying why I didnâ™t like Pulp Fiction sounds fair.

I though Pulp Fiction was derivative. Of what, you may ask. Well, of everything that came before it. You say he took things and made them better. Well, I'll give you that he updated them for a modern American audience and there is nothing wrong with that, but to me, it isn't good watching. I'm not new to watching movies and I've seen these tricks before.

I don't hate all his dialogue. But I do think a lot of it is extraneous. For me, a good film tells a solid story and tells it well. You could know what happens with those characters without at least half of what they say. In Film, character is action, not words. These are things I believe because they reflect what is different between movies I like and movies that I don't.

I completely agree with you about Signs, not an original emotion in its body, no doubt. It seems like, these days, in order to make a movie about aliens, you really have to have something to say about movies with aliens, to pull us in. They didn't have it.

I haven't seen Pearl Harbor yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about that as well.

What it seems to come down to is that I'm not inspired to like the characters by how they talk in that movie. Not by Samuel Jackson's talk about god, come on, it is wooden and it doesn't reflect what people who make religious conversions really talk about and definitely not by a joke about a big mac in France. These things are clever, no doubt, but I'm not looking for writers who think they are clever. I want a writer who has something emotional to convey. Thatâ™s what makes a movie good.

That comment about not liking a movie because it is different really is stupid, but bear in mind that I didn't say that. Nor would I ever, it's bad criticism.

I never like movies that ring hollow and that don't have an emotional message. All I got from Pulp Fiction was some funny one-liners and the lesson that sometimes Hitmen are just people also, which is true, but not really a deep emotional point.

I've seen a lot of Seinfeld, but I don't understand the connection you are trying to make there.

I agree that what made people like Pulp Fiction was the non-linearesque tone, but really, he just slips back and forth between several story line; and, for me, he lost sight of making at least one good story in all that.

All these things, structure, dialogue, etc. are tools; but the measure of a story is in its heart, and that movie didnâ™t hold its own by my measure.

Thatâ™s all.

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

Gotcha,

I certainly wasn't personally offended. I'm new here and only nomiated the movie in response to the topic. Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cypher:
Let me get something straight here for the slow, i was JOKING. That's my sense of humour. I wasn't going to start a discussion because this argument has been covered numerous times and is rather one-sided, so there is no point.

Good day.

---

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

Oh my goodness - I forgot about ANACONDA. Along the same lines is an old 70s flick called NIGHT OF THE LEPUS - about giant rabbits that attack a town.

The Easter bunny on steroids.

Mark M
Scooter Productions

like:

"Originally posted by kubrick77:
ok, mr. johnson. i will explain this to you so that you may be able to understand it, ok?

2001:
this picture deals with human evolution, and the paths we have taken to evolve. it deals with our dependence on technology, i.e. HAL 9000 computer, and how technology could possibly take over the human race. another film dealing with the same themes which you might be aware of is Terminator 2, though its storytelling is different.

Full Metal Jacket:
this deals with War and its affects on society and the human spirit. it shows how war is man's most uncivilixed creation, and what its purpose holds--nothing, death, destruction.

The Shining:
deals with the human psyche and the supernatural.

A Clockwork Orange:
deals with a government's control of the human spirit in an attempt to change it for their purposes. fascism, violence, total control and other themes surround the film.

if you would like any other information, check out the library for a change, and read how film has the power to reflect society.

you might learn something."

I avoid initiating negativity and personal attacks, but I will stick up for myself and my views. If I think a film-maker is a phony, I'll say it whether they are famous or not. I'll get back to Pulp Fiction, Tarantino and Kubrick in a little while.

good call here. A complete and thorough peice of trash. Actually, NIGHT OF THE LEPUS, sounds interesting, in an up all night can't fall asleep kind of way, or a frat party kind of way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark M:
Oh my goodness - I forgot about ANACONDA. Along the same lines is an old 70s flick called NIGHT OF THE LEPUS - about giant rabbits that attack a town.

The Easter bunny on steroids.

Mark M
Scooter Productions

---

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

I second what you said about being negative in response, that's all I was trying to say about you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by J_Richards:
like:

"Originally posted by kubrick77:
ok, mr. johnson. i will explain this to you so that you may be able to understand it, ok?

2001:
this picture deals with human evolution, and the paths we have taken to evolve. it deals with our dependence on technology, i.e. HAL 9000 computer, and how technology could possibly take over the human race. another film dealing with the same themes which you might be aware of is Terminator 2, though its storytelling is different.

Full Metal Jacket:
this deals with War and its affects on society and the human spirit. it shows how war is man's most uncivilixed creation, and what its purpose holds--nothing, death, destruction.

The Shining:
deals with the human psyche and the supernatural.

A Clockwork Orange:
deals with a government's control of the human spirit in an attempt to change it for their purposes. fascism, violence, total control and other themes surround the film.

if you would like any other information, check out the library for a change, and read how film has the power to reflect society.

you might learn something."

I avoid initiating negativity and personal attacks, but I will stick up for myself and my views. If I think a film-maker is a phony, I'll say it whether they are famous or not. I'll get back to Pulp Fiction, Tarantino and Kubrick in a little while.

---

http://www.cafepress.com/orangemind

i think whoever is saying ulp fiction is the worst film ever is only saying it because so many other ppl rave about it. it happened to titanic. all we heard was big boxoffice returns and praise and when it didnt hit our expectations for the hype we immediately called it the worst ever. if pulp fiction had never hit it big and stayed an underground or less success then you wouldnt call it the worst cause your expevctations and conflicting interests with others wouldnt allow you to see any good in it. i have the adsact same problem with spielberg. the fact that i hear hes the greatest director ever enfuriates me. not because hes bad but just because it conflicts with my beliefs. that will overshadow the fact that i think spr and sl are good films. i guess thats just my take on it.

p.s. if you think the future of films is fuct, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WITH THE CAMERA RATHER THAN THE KEYBOARD!

Just my 2 cents for the "do not read books" and the "drop filmschool comments"

In my humble opinion, reading literature is key for a aspiring film maker and for a lot more. It opens your mind and a door to another, totally fascinating world.

for the drop filmschool comment...I totally do not understand your point. Why should I drop filmschool if I can make countless movies, help on even more films and work together with a bunch of extremely talented young film makers? I will learn tips and hints from teachers with great experience. Does this mean that I will stop discovering life and move forward in this world? absolutely not. In my freetime, I am able to visite different countries, live my life and learn about humanity and what else there is

so give me a point why I should drop filmschool. You think working at some store helps me more to make a film? The only point may be the costs but hey, I got parents and they are able to pay me the whole school. And if I would not have them, I could beg for a student loan.


I am REALLY curious why film school sux

xxx, vin diesel sux at acting....the shining remake, worst thing i have ever seen!! The whole time i wanted to kil myself!!! The kid...i wnated to strangle him!!! jeepers creepers!!! If you want the "creature" to be halfway scary, you dont make him look like mojo jojo from powerpuff girls. Matrix reloaded...the buildup wasnt worth it..too much **** not explained! many others, not enough time to explain.

You're beautiful, just touch it.