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.

___________________

Then stop coloring and visit Meat187's mix archive!

Last edited by Meat187 on Feb-01-2010 at 18:27

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.

Last edited by GoSpeedGo! on Feb-01-2010 at 21:01