True Romance was directed by Tony Scott so not strictly a Tarantino film.
He wrote a terrific script though. I wonder why he didn't direct it. Django is a terrific script. To write comedy out of a delicate subject matter was brilliant.
So Jurassic Park wasn't a Steven Spielberg film then? Etc.
It's the director which determines the way scenes are portrayed and ultimately how the film comes across. If you'd swapped Rodriguez and Scott round for Dusk/Romance I guarantee you'd have two entirely different films.
I think it's pretty harsh to rip out True Romance from Tony Scott's body of work and hand it over to Tarantino, personally.
So Jurassic Park wasn't a Steven Spielberg film then? Etc.
It's the director which determines the way scenes are portrayed and ultimately how the film comes across. If you'd swapped Rodriguez and Scott round for Dusk/Romance I guarantee you'd have two entirely different films.
I think it's pretty harsh to rip out True Romance from Tony Scott's body of work and hand it over to Tarantino, personally.
Feel free to point out to me where in the thread it says we are exclusively discussing films Tarantino has directed. It's not about taking anything away from Scott, I've no idea why you're even quantifying it in that manner. As writer, Tarantino's influence is all over the movie, enough to make it a Tarantino film (as writer), whilst still also being a Scott film (as director).
Yes, but he had zero influence on how the film was directed. Who knows how much of the script actually ended up in the movie, or how much of QT's dialogue was sliced out by Scott and his team, or how much the script was completely restructured, etc.
A writer washes his hands of a script when it goes off to get made and often the final film only bares a passing resemblance.
When the director is king, it just seems rather pointless to include writing credits. Granted, he may have leant on Rodriguez a bit during Dusk's filming and veered it more to his liking - I'll give you that maybe - but True Romance was completely out of his hands creatively very early on.
Just seems weird to me to even consider it along side the films he actually DID make. Pretty tenuous really.
Yes, but he had zero influence on how the film was directed. Who knows how much of the script actually ended up in the movie, or how much of QT's dialogue was sliced out by Scott and his team, or how much the script was completely restructured, etc.
A writer washes his hands of a script when it goes off to get made and often the final film only bares a passing resemblance.
When the director is king, it just seems rather pointless to include writing credits. Granted, he may have leant on Rodriguez a bit during Dusk's filming and veered it more to his liking - I'll give you that maybe - but True Romance was completely out of his hands creatively very early on.
Just seems weird to me to even consider it along side the films he actually DID make. Pretty tenuous really.
What's weird to me is the lengths you seem to be going to try to distance Tarantino from the film, specially when so many of your "who knows" have already been well documented though the yeas in magazines, making-of books, interviews etc. (and no, I won't be providing links for you).
Bottom line is, he is credited as the writer, and therefore that makes it a Tarantino written film, and as the thread isn't exclusively about films he has directed, I have nominated it as my favourite Tarantino film, if that's doesn't sit well with you that's your problem I'm afraid.
Comments
True Romance was directed by Tony Scott so not strictly a Tarantino film.
He wrote a terrific script though. I wonder why he didn't direct it. Django is a terrific script. To write comedy out of a delicate subject matter was brilliant.
Anyway, that's his best one for me, closely followed by Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Part 1 and Django Unchained.
Inglorious Basterds remains a steaming great pile of shit ..
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If I had to choose between Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, it would depend on what day you asked me.
I think most of us got over that argument years, decades, ago. Tarantino wrote it and that's good enough.
It's the director which determines the way scenes are portrayed and ultimately how the film comes across. If you'd swapped Rodriguez and Scott round for Dusk/Romance I guarantee you'd have two entirely different films.
I think it's pretty harsh to rip out True Romance from Tony Scott's body of work and hand it over to Tarantino, personally.
Feel free to point out to me where in the thread it says we are exclusively discussing films Tarantino has directed. It's not about taking anything away from Scott, I've no idea why you're even quantifying it in that manner. As writer, Tarantino's influence is all over the movie, enough to make it a Tarantino film (as writer), whilst still also being a Scott film (as director).
A writer washes his hands of a script when it goes off to get made and often the final film only bares a passing resemblance.
When the director is king, it just seems rather pointless to include writing credits. Granted, he may have leant on Rodriguez a bit during Dusk's filming and veered it more to his liking - I'll give you that maybe - but True Romance was completely out of his hands creatively very early on.
Just seems weird to me to even consider it along side the films he actually DID make. Pretty tenuous really.
What's weird to me is the lengths you seem to be going to try to distance Tarantino from the film, specially when so many of your "who knows" have already been well documented though the yeas in magazines, making-of books, interviews etc. (and no, I won't be providing links for you).
Bottom line is, he is credited as the writer, and therefore that makes it a Tarantino written film, and as the thread isn't exclusively about films he has directed, I have nominated it as my favourite Tarantino film, if that's doesn't sit well with you that's your problem I'm afraid.
(yeah ripped off etc, still..meh, great doing..)