TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Inglorious Basterds
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Take Til Schweiger's character for example. He serves no purpose whatsoever, and there's no need to have him in the movie at all.

This is the only part I can comment on, I can't argue against "boring" when it's unsubstantiated.

Til Schweiger is Hugo Stiglitz, right? I took his character as a reference to guys like Claus von Stauffenberg from Valkyrie who infiltrated the Nazi regime from inside.

Also, he is named after a Mexican actor, which makes him your token blaxpoitation character (his flashback is narrated by a black dude - Samuel L. Jackson, also the font his name is written in resembles those movies). Notice, how it is him who writes "King Kong" on the card when they're playing the game in the tavern.

Edit: I guess I know how you meant it. Yes, the story could very well exist without him, Hitler would still be killed, the theater would still burn etc. When you're looking at it from a purely narrative standpoint, it wouldn't make a difference if he wasn't in the movie. However, he is part of the whole "subverting stereotypes" subtext I was talking about before; he is a badass blaxpoitation guy that is played by a white, German actor. So yes, it makes sense.

That's like the Tom Bombadil character in Lord of the Rings is completely disposable, because Frodo would successfully travel to the Mount of Doom anyway (as the movie proved). Tolkien was not trying to be cool when he included him in the book, though; he was a part of the whole mythology behind MiddleEarth, that he created.

Wait, a German guy didn't like a movie about nazis? Shit, that's very odd.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews Edit: I guess I know how you meant it. Yes, the story could very well exist without him, Hitler would still be killed, the theater would still burn etc. When you're looking at it from a purely narrative standpoint, it wouldn't make a difference if he wasn't in the movie. However, he is part of the whole "subverting stereotypes" subtext I was talking about before; he is a badass blaxpoitation guy that is played by a white, German actor. So yes, it makes sense. That's like the Tom Bombadil character in Lord of the Rings is completely disposable, because Frodo would successfully travel to the Mount of Doom anyway (as the movie proved). Tolkien was not trying to be cool when he included him in the book, though; he was a part of the whole mythology behind MiddleEarth, that he created.

The point where this comparison fails massively (apart from the different genre and Tom Bombadil actually being interesting and entertaining) is that you're comparing literature and movies. There's a massive difference between them regarding pacing, storytelling and structure. Ever wondered why there are loads of action movies but hardly any (pure) action books?
The background explanation you gave shows why Tarantino failed the way he did, but doesn't make any of it better or more adequate.

I used that comparison only because I presumed your problem with Stiglitz is that he doesn't contribute in any way to the main storyline. Now, if you'd like to start being more specific (at why Tarantino fails so hard), we might be getting somewhere.

The way I see it, it only makes sense that he is the only Basterd that gets such a full backstory, because he doesn't get any real action in the movie. When he's sitting in the tavern next to the German officer, the only thing he needs to do to create more suspense to the scene is to look all pissed, because from his flashback you (as the viewer) know what kind of a motherfucker he is and what he's capable of doing. In this respect, Tarantino proved himself as a great storyteller, imo.

I'd like to see you back up what you say, really. Up until this point you've failed to prove why is this not good.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews I'd like to see you back up what you say, really. Up until this point you've failed to prove why is this not good.

What I said is pretty clear, just apparently not to you. And really, asking me to prove my taste can only be understood as a joke.

Edit:

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews The way I see it, it only makes sense that he is the only Basterd that gets such a full backstory, because he doesn't get any real action in the movie.

Really?!?! You find it sensible to give a character a full backstory only to have him do nothing for the rest of the movie? The point I was trying to make is that the movie would have been better without him, pacing-wise, story-wise and character-wise. Since you seem to note the same points (long backstory, no contribution) yet reach exactly the opposite conclusion there seems to be no point in continuing.

"It's a matter of taste", said the monkey when he ate the soap.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 What I said is pretty clear, just apparently not to you. And really, asking me to prove my taste can only be understood as a joke.

Being a good storyteller isn't a matter of taste. Saying Tarantino failed suggests he did something (objectively?) wrong - all I wanted to hear was some concrete example.

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 Really?!?! You find it sensible to give a character a full backstory only to have him do nothing for the rest of the movie? The point I was trying to make is that the movie would have been better without him, pacing-wise, story-wise and character-wise. Since you seem to note the same points (long backstory, no contribution) yet reach exactly the opposite conclusion there seems to be no point in continuing.

Yeah, I guess. As I said, I have no problem with the backstory because it a) establishes him as the white nigger b) shows how badass he is, so that when he just frowns on someone, you know what kind of fucked up shit is probably going on in his head.

You called the first part of the movie boring, but there is a key to understanding of the film right in the conversation Landa has with the farmer. When he does the comparison between rats and squirrels, he challenges the man's prejudices, which is exactly what Tarantino does in this movie.

Oh well, let's just agree to disagree, then.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.