The Instigator
Phoequinox
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cherymenthol
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Cherymenthol
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,476 times Debate No: 10890
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Phoequinox

Con

I recall the praise that rolled in when Quentin Tarantino released Pulp Fiction. When I saw the movie, I was mostly unimpressed. It was a series of quotable quips and silly hipster garbage. I didn't hate the movie, but it certainly wasn't what I was made to believe, i.e. the greatest piece of modern cinema. Now, I will not say he is a terrible director for this. He has some good movies to his credit. I would even say Pulp Fiction is on that list. What he IS a terrible director for is not maturing.

Every director hits a point where they realize they need to do something new. Steven Spielberg had Schindler's List, James Cameron had Titanic, Tim Burton had Big Fish, the list goes on. Tarantino continues to churn out movies that are campy, gory and "hip". Look at Robert Rodriguez, he made Sin City and From Dusk 'Til Dawn. He also made Spy Kids and Shorts. All of which ranged from huge to moderate successes. He is in the same boat as Tarantino, but manages to break away to do something different. There is no excuse for Tarantino continuing the unrelenting style he uses for every movie.
Cherymenthol

Pro

I agree with all my opponents arguments, please extend them at this time.

Also note my opponent instigated this debate as the CON, meaning they must prove the resolution false. Therefore when they say, and I quote, "What he IS a terrible director for is not maturing...." they fail to uphold the CON'a position because they prove the resolution true. Furthermore this is a blatant concession because they started the debate off agreeing with me. So please do not allow them to introduce more arguments because what will happen is they will become a moving target, shifting their advocacy round by round, creating an unfair debate. But finally, just in case, I will post a few reasons why Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director.

DEFINITION(S):

Quentin Tarantino: The man pictured in the link below. (http://api.ning.com...*CuoG1vYoNLKvn8G24XJe34JEWEvo9*LlkeQVsTndb/tarantino.jpg)

Terrible: Very bad
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Contention 1: Tarantino is a very bad person because he has no morals

Johann Hari writes, "He [Quentin Tarantino] has turned suffering into a merry joke. From Pulp Fiction to Kill Bill, he encourages the audience to chortle at torture and mutilation and anal rape. A typical punchline is -- whoops! -- a man being shot in the face. Where there should be a gag reflex, he gives us a gag. In Inglorious Basterds, a group of Jews undercover in Germany torture and scalp Nazis, and he gets the viewer to roar with laughter as people are carved up, alive and howling.

"Violence in the movies can be cool," he says. "It's just another color to work with. When Fred Astaire dances, it doesn't mean anything. Violence is the same. It doesn't mean anything. It's a color." He scorns anyone who tries to see simulated violence as having meaning. With a laugh, he says: "John Woo's violence has a very insightful view as to how the Hong Kong mind works because with 1997 approaching and blah blah blah. I don't think that's why he's doing it. He's doing it because he gets a kick out of it." Praising Stanley Kubrik's direction of A Clockwork Orange, he says, "He enjoyed the violence a little too much. I'm all for that."

In the slightly pretentious language of postmodernism, he is trying to separate the sign (movie violence) from the signified (real violence) -- leaving us floating in a sea of meaningless signs that refer to nothing but themselves and the sealed-off history of cinema.

What's wrong with this vision? Why does it make me so queasy? I don't believe works of art should be ennobling. I don't believe the heroes should be virtuous, or that bad characters should get their comeuppance. It can show deeply violent and deeply cruel people, and tell us that -- as in real life -- they can be charismatic and successful and never pay a price for their cruelty. But what it should never do is tell us that human suffering itself is trivial. It should never turn pain into a punch-line.

Violence has particular power on film precisely because it involuntarily activates our powers of empathy. We imagine ourselves, as an unthinking reflex, into the agony. This is the most civilizing instinct we have: to empathize with suffering strangers. (It competes, of course, with all our more base instincts.) Any work of art that denies this sense -- that is based on subverting it -- will ultimately be sullying. No, I'm not saying it makes people violent. But it does leave the viewer just a millimetre more morally corroded. Laughing at simulated torture -- and even cheering it on, as we are encouraged to through all of Tarantino's later films -- leaves a moral muscle just a tiny bit more atrophied."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

Contention 2: Critics find Tarantino terrible

Dennis Lim puts it best when he says, "Quentin Tarantino concludes his seventh feature, the Nazi-bludgeoning fantasy Inglourious Basterds, with a grisly flourish and a self-satisfied review. Having performed one of his signature mutilations, a character peers down at his handiwork and into the camera and declares: "This might just be my masterpiece." This is typical Tarantino bluster, in keeping with the image of the bratty wunderkind that he worked hard to cultivate and that, even at 46, he refuses to outgrow. But as the rare filmmaker who's also an avid reader of film reviews, he also surely knows that it's been a while since the critical establishment thought of him as a maker of masterpieces."

(http://www.slate.com...)

Thank you and we ought to Affirm.
Debate Round No. 1
Phoequinox

Con

While it is fun to over-analyze, please bear in mind that I am new to this site, and that I thought by choosing "Con" I was saying I'm against something in general, not that I was against my argument. But since you chose to ruin this by agreeing with what is obviously a mistake, I suppose there is no argument. Way to ruin the fun.
Cherymenthol

Pro

While it is fun to over-analyze, please bear in mind that I am new to this site, and that I thought by choosing "Con" I was saying I'm against something in general, not that I was against my argument. But since you chose to ruin this by agreeing with what is obviously a mistake, I suppose there is no argument. Way to ruin the fun.

I am apologize but over-analyzing!?!?! Please all I have done is point out the mistake in your logic. The concept of this website is not very hard, you chose a topic, "Quentin Tarantino's directing abilities", and then you chose PRO or CON. Also you are misconstruing my argument you as CON are against something in general, in the confines of this round it is the topic, not against your own arguments. Therefore going CON against the resolution "Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director" implies that you feel he is a terrific director. And you could be less harsh. It is entirely your fault for misinterpreting a basic concept, not my for showing you it.

Furthermore none of my arguments have been refuted, extend the contentions which show that Tarantino's moral character is severely flawed making him a bad person, and his directing is sub-par, making him a bad director.

Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 2
Phoequinox

Con

Your poor English isn't the uneducated internet troll type, but more the foreign lack of comprehension, so I won't cite grammar and spelling errors. But rather than agreeing with me, you could have commented like everyone else to say that I did it wrong. Or private messaged me. The debate would have either ended without a challenge or someone would have used my misunderstanding to fuel their argument for why I'm not worth listening to. The content of my detailed argument makes it obvious that I made a mistake. Someone who genuinely disagreed could have made me look completely foolish. But now we're stuck at an impasse because we're in agreement with the subject. If you wanted to voice your opinion as to why Tarantino's a bad director, you should have made your own debate and left this one to someone with a genuinely differing opinion. It's really disappointing.
Cherymenthol

Pro

Detailed, please don't make me scoff. you lack even basic sources to credit your assertions.

But this is the accord I feel we may be able to reach beginning in the next round you write why you feel Quentin Tarantino is a terrible director, and I will refute as best as I can.

Sound like a plan :). I am more than happy to debate this topic, whilst refraining from semantic arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Phoequinox

Con

Fair enough. You are at least competent, so I owe you the decency of a legitimate debate.

Reservoir Dogs was a great movie, and was a breath of fresh air when movies were becoming generic. Pulp Fiction took the style of Reservoir Dogs and made it into a more accessible movie with actors who were more popular with the younger generation and snappier dialogue. Jackie Brown was his underrated cult classic. It had a stellar cast and more cohesive story than his past movies. These three movies were the end of what was a potentially excellent director. But rather than mature as he had been, he devolved.

His next big project was Kill Bill, which only succeeded in ruining the classic Chinese master/pupil story. While it has been done to death, it did not need to be butchered with Tarantino's now-generic obsession with swearing, gore and feet. It was exciting seeing Kill Bill's trailers when it was completely veiled in secrecy. I won't lie, I was one of the most enthusiastic people to see Tarantino's take on the traditional Chinese stories and stylish fight scenes. But what was released was not stylish but two hours of over-the-top blood gushing. The gore was ridiculous and boring. He found some way of making a twenty-minute fight scene boring. With this, I lost a lot of respect for him. Kill Bill Pt. 2 contained most of the scenes I was excited for in the trailer, and it was far more enjoyable between the two. But again, his unchanging style and 2-dimensional characters who know only how to kill, swear and make quotable remarks made it a difficult movie to enjoy. I get that his movies aren't to be taken seriously, but even then, they're too subtle and dry to be funny.

But I'm ranting. I'm not here to dismiss his movies as garbage, but to prove his lack of talent in the director's chair. After Kill Bill, he once again teamed up with Robert Rodriguez to make Sin City and Grindhouse. The former he only directed a short scene in. His half of Grindhouse is most people's least favorite, and one many people could do without. Grindhouse was openly shallow and silly. But Death Proof was boring and lacked the variety of Planet Terror. Once again, a side-by-side comparison drawn between the two shows how a director with a similar style can be more creative. This time, it's irrefutable.

Tarantino's last movie, Inglourious Basterds, was a poor attempt at stylizing the events of WWII. We're made to believe the movie is focused on the Basterds in the title. Instead, the focus is on everyone else. There was some genuinely good acting. But most of the movie was talking. The typical tongue-in-cheek style was absent for most scenes, save for inexplicable cutaways. It was all different, so it was looking like it would be a departure for sure. But it became so outlandish at times, it lost all distinction from his other movies. A friend of mine put it best when they said that his movies are slow, then go too far, comparing it to going to prom and having no one to dance with and then getting gang-raped.

The moment Tarantino makes anything below an R-rating, I will show interest. But as it currently stands, he's only proving himself as a one-trick pony with each new movie.
Cherymenthol

Pro

Fair enough. You are at least competent, so I owe you the decency of a legitimate debate.

This will be crucial for conduct as will round 3.

Reservoir Dogs was a great movie, and was a breath of fresh air when movies were becoming generic. Pulp Fiction took the style of Reservoir Dogs and made it into a more accessible movie with actors who were more popular with the younger generation and snappier dialogue. Jackie Brown was his underrated cult classic. It had a stellar cast and more cohesive story than his past movies.

This if not ends the debate shows that Quentin Tarantino is a terrific director. Meaning we can already see the "PRO" has lost.

His next big project was Kill Bill, which only succeeded in ruining the classic Chinese master/pupil story. While it has been done to death, it did not need to be butchered with Tarantino's now-generic obsession with swearing, gore and feet. It was exciting seeing Kill Bill's trailers when it was completely veiled in secrecy. I won't lie, I was one of the most enthusiastic people to see Tarantino's take on the traditional Chinese stories and stylish fight scenes. But what was released was not stylish but two hours of over-the-top blood gushing. The gore was ridiculous and boring. He found some way of making a twenty-minute fight scene boring. With this, I lost a lot of respect for him. Kill Bill Pt. 2 contained most of the scenes I was excited for in the trailer, and it was far more enjoyable between the two. But again, his unchanging style and 2-dimensional characters who know only how to kill, swear and make quotable remarks made it a difficult movie to enjoy. I get that his movies aren't to be taken seriously, but even then, they're too subtle and dry to be funny.

I find Kill Bill a classic, we have competing opinions. You on the other hand concede points in making these which are invaluable to the "PRO" of this debate. What I am trying to point out is that you support the "PRO"'s side while just saying you didn't like the movie. A debate can't be clashing opinions which is why in reality none of the opinion portions of you arguments hold no weight in this round.

But I'm ranting. I'm not here to dismiss his movies as garbage, but to prove his lack of talent in the director's chair. After Kill Bill, he once again teamed up with Robert Rodriguez to make Sin City and Grindhouse. The former he only directed a short scene in. His half of Grindhouse is most people's least favorite, and one many people could do without. Grindhouse was openly shallow and silly. But Death Proof was boring and lacked the variety of Planet Terror. Once again, a side-by-side comparison drawn between the two shows how a director with a similar style can be more creative. This time, it's irrefutable.

Their is no evidence to support it so like for all these claims we can drop it on face. But also I feel Death Proof was the better portion than Planet Terror

Tarantino's last movie, Inglourious Basterds, was a poor attempt at stylizing the events of WWII. We're made to believe the movie is focused on the Basterds in the title. Instead, the focus is on everyone else. There was some genuinely good acting. But most of the movie was talking. The typical tongue-in-cheek style was absent for most scenes, save for inexplicable cutaways. It was all different, so it was looking like it would be a departure for sure. But it became so outlandish at times, it lost all distinction from his other movies. A friend of mine put it best when they said that his movies are slow, then go too far, comparing it to going to prom and having no one to dance with and then getting gang-raped.

I am sorry but in all of your outlandish claims you could not be more wrong than you are here. Please just take one glance at Itunes and you'll realize how woefully incorrect you are. If you are not inclined to do so I will post a link to one of the most Cynical Websites that gives reviews, Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com...) As this link will indicate views have nothing but respect for his ability and movie.

We can also extend C2 from my first speech to show that Tarantino actually is a phenomenal director. But what is I have fulfilled the burden of proof, and discredited my opponents un-veriafiable claims. Thank you and vote PRO
Debate Round No. 4
Phoequinox

Con

You really must put quotes in quotation marks. It makes your arguments difficult to read when you just cut and paste.

As to the argument itself, I'm not making any sort of claims. It's all opinion. I am only trying to shed light on something that I personally believe. I realize having sources is imperative to any argument. But there is no way to find a source that says whether or not for FACT that Tarantino is a bad director. It's all about opinion, and I realize that, and I also realize I may be alone in my argument. But I want to point out the flaws in his directing. Or what I see as flaws. All of his movies have the same elements. And they're done in such a way that it isn't really a trademark so much as just repetitive. His movies all have the same feel. I know saying his first few movies were good sinks my argument, but my reasoning as to why his directing skills are poor is that he never matures. Those few good movies were only good because they were fresh. It's like a band having three good hits and fading into obscurity. I know he is still making "hits". That is only a metaphor. But he has yet to do anything different or original. You need to do something more than shock your audience. You have to give them something they have never seen. We've all seen WWII. In many different ways. Tarantino's take just assimilated them all into one movie and called it his.

Death Proof was an original idea, but not original execution. Nothing besides the premise hasn't been seen in Tarantino's movies already. His movies rely on dialogue. There's nothing wrong with this. Thank You For Smoking is one of my favorite movies, and is almost entirely dialogue. But Tarantino's dialogue, while very witty at times, usually degenerates into excessive swearing and sleaze. To a point where it's just filler. It makes the otherwise enjoyable exchanges feel forced and silly.

In closing, I will say this: Quentin Tarantino has incredible potential. But he wastes it on the same routines. He has lost a lot of credibility with me, and continues to with each new movie. I only want to bring this to the attention of the masses. There is no proof of his lack of directing skills. Only an opinion that I would hope others agree with.
Cherymenthol

Pro

"As to the argument itself, I'm not making any sort of claims. It's all opinion. I am only trying to shed light on something that I personally believe. I realize having sources is imperative to any argument. But there is no way to find a source that says whether or not for FACT that Tarantino is a bad director. It's all about opinion, and I realize that, and I also realize I may be alone in my argument. But I want to point out what I see as flaws."

In reality this one excerpt of my opponents speech would be enough to urge a ballot in my favor but I will continue, but do keep in mind this automatically defaults arguments and sources to me due to the fact that they concede them to me.

"I know he is still making "hits"."

Do bad directors continue to make hits? No they wouldn't the one time wonder phenomena is possible but as my opponent concedes he has multiple hits so this simply isn't true, he is a good director.

"Death Proof was an original idea."

This also directly negates other claims against hit inability to create diverse films...

"Quentin Tarantino has incredible potential."

One more monumental concession in this round.

But if you, the voters, do not buy these verbatim quotes we can extend my 2nd contention from my first speech, it was never argued and shows how experts agree that he is a great director. we can also extend the rottenttomatoes ratting which was once again not attacked, and portrays how viewers enjoy his directing.

In short all votes in this round, with the exception of grammar, ought to go to me. This is why:

Conduct: My opponents subtle jibes at my character already merit a vote against him, but to show why it ought not be a tie rather a vote for me we can look to my acceptance at over-looking his confusion and lack of understanding and allowing him a debate, showing that I am a debater of true character.

Arguments: If we don't buy the literal concession of this point made by my opponent we can look to the fact that my arguments are structured with a clear thesis and overall goal, and they were never attacked furthering their cogency.

Sources: By sheer numbers we can see I win, but furthermore on the reliability of the quotes we can default to me again because as my opponent contends her arguments are sourced by opinion and there are no facts to support her claims.

Grammar: In hindsight the grammar by both debaters doesn't warrant anything other than a tie, because no single can speech adequately give reason why either debater should receive a ballot.

Thank you for your time and effort.

I urge a PRO, which is technically CON, vote on this topic.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
good debate, but I have to dis-agree. Quentin is my all time favorite director.
Kill bill is my all time favorite movie.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Look to speech for my RFD.
Posted by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
Sorry this might take a while, I am very busy at school lately...
Posted by john_locke 7 years ago
john_locke
Not to mention he makes movies like no one else does right now. His has his own genre.
Posted by Keyser_Soze 7 years ago
Keyser_Soze
I think he's a good director soley on the reason that I enjoy his movies. To each his own.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
No one has made an argument that he's a terrible director here. Con admits he has made good films and Pro attacks his morals which are irrelevant to his film making abilities. Surely a terrible director would never have made a good film, instead you are both just saying that he is now past it.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Clearly, Phoequinox mistakenly chose Con instead of Pro.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Jackie Brown was the last good movie he made.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
PhoequinoxCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
PhoequinoxCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
PhoequinoxCherymentholTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06