Comments on: Inglourious Basterds — Through the Lens of Literature http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:34:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kithttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-11824 Kit Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:57:29 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-11824 I realise how long ago the last comment was, but this is too good to pass up.“So you are saying that I don't have the capability to have an opinion on whether a movie is good or not[...]"Clearly, that's not what he was saying. In fact, it seemed as though YOU were the one attacking his opinion. The hypocrisy is great in this one.PS: learn to spell, and use grammar. You actually had be tripping over myself in the first paragraph - wait, there only was one paragraph - within the first few lines at least."[...]yourself that refuses to jump of the Tarantino bandwagon[...]"It's spelt 'off'. I realise how long ago the last comment was, but this is too good to pass up.

“So you are saying that I don’t have the capability to have an opinion on whether a movie is good or not[...]”

Clearly, that’s not what he was saying. In fact, it seemed as though YOU were the one attacking his opinion. The hypocrisy is great in this one.

PS: learn to spell, and use grammar. You actually had be tripping over myself in the first paragraph – wait, there only was one paragraph – within the first few lines at least.

“[...]yourself that refuses to jump of the Tarantino bandwagon[...]”

It’s spelt ‘off’.

]]> By: Thomashttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-8534 Thomas Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:07:51 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-8534 It's hard to decipher your grammatically deficient mega-paragraph as more than a thinly veiled attack than a constructive comment on the issue. Generally when someone takes the time and effort to write out an article and criticize something so in-depth it does denote that they have a certain level of respect for the media that they are criticizing, not necessarily that they are on any "bandwagon". Also, you will find in your continued writings that making vast generalizations will only weaken your stance instead of strengthen it.<br> <br>Your knowledge of German occupied France also seems lacking as French resistance groups regularly aided in the Allied operations that took place there. Take the invasion of Normandy beach, one of the key battles that allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France. The Maquis (Big word, don't worry it only means French Resistance Fighters) sabotaged German supply lines and prevented them from mobilizing quickly or efficiently. I recommend that you brush up on your WWII history before you start criticizing others for their lack of it. It's hard to decipher your grammatically deficient mega-paragraph as more than a thinly veiled attack than a constructive comment on the issue. Generally when someone takes the time and effort to write out an article and criticize something so in-depth it does denote that they have a certain level of respect for the media that they are criticizing, not necessarily that they are on any “bandwagon”. Also, you will find in your continued writings that making vast generalizations will only weaken your stance instead of strengthen it.

Your knowledge of German occupied France also seems lacking as French resistance groups regularly aided in the Allied operations that took place there. Take the invasion of Normandy beach, one of the key battles that allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France. The Maquis (Big word, don't worry it only means French Resistance Fighters) sabotaged German supply lines and prevented them from mobilizing quickly or efficiently. I recommend that you brush up on your WWII history before you start criticizing others for their lack of it.

]]> By: johncoophttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-8533 johncoop Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:30:54 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-8533 Duder, I'm not a superior intellect. I'm a 20 year old kid. I'm not making a high vaulted comment about this film, I'm showing how films can be literary, using Inglourious Basterds as an example. The film has depth. Film has depth. I'm not stroking his ego, because I honestly don't care about him. I care about the product that he has made.<br><br>You, sir, are being silly. Duder, I'm not a superior intellect. I'm a 20 year old kid. I'm not making a high vaulted comment about this film, I'm showing how films can be literary, using Inglourious Basterds as an example. The film has depth. Film has depth. I'm not stroking his ego, because I honestly don't care about him. I care about the product that he has made.

You, sir, are being silly.

]]> By: JohnZeehttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-8532 JohnZee Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:22:14 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-8532 Pretty obvious that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Not that I expected you to. I wasn't saying that Tarantino couldn't have a Tarantino Verse where all of his movies share an alternate reality from the world that we all know. He can do exactly that,and he does seem to have done that with several of his movies.<br><br>But Inglourious Basterds can't take place in that established continuity, especially in the past because it disrupts events in time from that point on that the present day would be completely different from not only our present day, but also the Tarantino established continuity of his other movies.<br><br>I agree that Tarantino has his only unique style but that does not excuse bad plotting and horrible characterization. Other directors have had their own unique style as well, and they two have produced bad films as well.<br><br>Nope you are also wrong about the film not keeping aligned with actual events being my only problem with the movie. That movie has many more problems then that, but I was trying to limit my comments, as I knew that you wouldn't bother to read my entire comment. Didn't seem much use to fully elaborate. And lets face it, I could write a long series of articles on the problems with this movie.<br><br>So you are saying that I don't have the capability to have an opinion on whether a movie is good or not, because some movies are so complicated that only a superior intellect like yourself can comprehend? That is complete hogwash and you embarrass yourself by even making such a comment that frankly says more about your personal arrogance then anything else.<br><br>And the funny thing is that if Tarantino was making some sort of comment about the arrogance and uselessness of critics who sit in their ivory towers and make high vaulted comments about films without actually taking a serious look at a films they are criticizing. (in the scene that included Mike Myers and the Churchill lookalike), then he was probably talking about you.<br><br>Or maybe not. Maybe he'd be okay with you since you seem to be so focused on stroking his ego.<br>Maybe you could give him a non-sexual foot message.<br><br><br>(I'm not going to post this again as it is a waste of both of our time, a third time would be even more pointless then this second time.) Pretty obvious that you didn't even bother to read what I wrote. Not that I expected you to. I wasn't saying that Tarantino couldn't have a Tarantino Verse where all of his movies share an alternate reality from the world that we all know. He can do exactly that,and he does seem to have done that with several of his movies.

But Inglourious Basterds can't take place in that established continuity, especially in the past because it disrupts events in time from that point on that the present day would be completely different from not only our present day, but also the Tarantino established continuity of his other movies.

I agree that Tarantino has his only unique style but that does not excuse bad plotting and horrible characterization. Other directors have had their own unique style as well, and they two have produced bad films as well.

Nope you are also wrong about the film not keeping aligned with actual events being my only problem with the movie. That movie has many more problems then that, but I was trying to limit my comments, as I knew that you wouldn't bother to read my entire comment. Didn't seem much use to fully elaborate. And lets face it, I could write a long series of articles on the problems with this movie.

So you are saying that I don't have the capability to have an opinion on whether a movie is good or not, because some movies are so complicated that only a superior intellect like yourself can comprehend? That is complete hogwash and you embarrass yourself by even making such a comment that frankly says more about your personal arrogance then anything else.

And the funny thing is that if Tarantino was making some sort of comment about the arrogance and uselessness of critics who sit in their ivory towers and make high vaulted comments about films without actually taking a serious look at a films they are criticizing. (in the scene that included Mike Myers and the Churchill lookalike), then he was probably talking about you.

Or maybe not. Maybe he'd be okay with you since you seem to be so focused on stroking his ego.
Maybe you could give him a non-sexual foot message.

(I'm not going to post this again as it is a waste of both of our time, a third time would be even more pointless then this second time.)

]]> By: Tweets that mention Inglourious Basterds — Through the Lens of Literature | Atomic Popcorn -- Topsy.comhttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-7901 Tweets that mention Inglourious Basterds — Through the Lens of Literature | Atomic Popcorn -- Topsy.com Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:41:38 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-7901 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by johncoop, johncoop. johncoop said: Check out my lengthy article on Inglourious Basterds literary qualities (I'm really proud of it, so please looksee!) http://bit.ly/3weEnV [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by johncoop, johncoop. johncoop said: Check out my lengthy article on Inglourious Basterds literary qualities (I'm really proud of it, so please looksee!) http://bit.ly/3weEnV [...]

]]> By: johncoophttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-8531 johncoop Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:35:48 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-8531 I disagree with your last statement. Your view seems to be that Tarantino's work can not exist as its own "Tarantino-verse," separate from real life events. What you call poor plotting is simply stylization (purposeful), and you seem to discount everything the film is about because of how it doesn't align itself with true events.<br><br>I'm not on a bandwagon. Tarantino isn't one of my favorite directors. My word choice appropriately matches the subject material — it's an intellectual exercise that you haven't seemed to be able to wrap your head around sufficiently.<br><br>Open your eyes. I disagree with your last statement. Your view seems to be that Tarantino's work can not exist as its own “Tarantino-verse,” separate from real life events. What you call poor plotting is simply stylization (purposeful), and you seem to discount everything the film is about because of how it doesn't align itself with true events.

I'm not on a bandwagon. Tarantino isn't one of my favorite directors. My word choice appropriately matches the subject material — it's an intellectual exercise that you haven't seemed to be able to wrap your head around sufficiently.

Open your eyes.

]]> By: JohnZeehttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-8530 JohnZee Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:07:48 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-8530 Impressive. Certainly not Tarantino's shoddy work given the name of Inglourious Basterds. No, I am talking about your impressive use of the most formal word you could possibly use at each and every opportunity. Your teacher must have the tightest ass in the history of tightest asses to force his students to go so overboard in their use of words that are guaranteed to win you a game of scrabble. There has been an argument made that Inglourious Basterds is a movie that thumbs it's nose at critics and their so called elevated perception when it comes to the things they criticize. Of course this was just another example of someone like yourself that refuses to jump of the Tarantino bandwagon, even when it is filled with shit. I am getting sick of all of these excuses that other people, trained critics and those with an untrained eye that keep excusing each and everyone of the obvious flaws of the crapfest callled Inglourious Basterdsas as signs of the brilliance of Tarantino You want to know why the title was misspelled? I would suggest you get your hands on an actual original script written by the man and then the reason should be obvious. He himself has even stated that his liability as a film maker is that his scripts are sloppy and awkward at best. Storytelling and reproducing the mojo of a spectacular scene from a movie that only 3% of the population has ever seen is his specialty. It is embarrassing that Tarantino was allowed to make such a poorly written movie, and it is even more embarrassing that critics cannot see past what he has done before to be objective enough to criticize it based on its own qualities, not on the qualities of his other movies, and certainly not the qualities that were supposedly hidden by Tarantino to prove his expertise. That last part is so absurd that it is laughable. The movie has no relationship to actual World War 2 history because it took place in the Tarantino-Verse? That has got to be one of the dumbest defense strategies for poor plotting that I have ever heard. When John Travolta was talking about the alternative name for a Quarter Pounder in France at no time did he mention anything that would imply that Tarantino France was any different from regular France. But the France of Inglourious Basterds is very different from the France in our world and the world the Vincent Vega occupied. You are obvious a very educated man, and I'm sure that your head is filled with tons of knowledge that is absent in my particularly thick head, an as such you would surely grasp that a France that played a major part in the ending of the war in the European theater during World War 2 would be vastly different from a France that needed the help of England and America. In that world it wouldn't take long for Germany to lose a majority of the countries that it occupied. Can you imagine the population in occupied Poland finding out that France, and more specifically two french citizens had easily managed to take down the creme of the Nazi elite? The Nazi's would be shown to be as foolish and dimwitted as Allied propaganda lampooned. Countries would have been liberated much quicker with the increase in resistance fighters and this would result in a very different world then the one we know that had to suffer decades of Cold War. That is just an example of how radically different the Tarantino-Inglourious Basterds-Verse would be from the so called Tarantino-Verse. It is a flimsy claim, an even more flimsy argument to support bad plotting. Tarantino wrote a horrible story that even his directing and cinematography couldn't save. From the looks of things he was too busy trying to stroke the egos of two particular types of people. One would be the French, probably because the French have loved Tarantino for a long time (Cannes Film Festival), and the other would be the Jewish community, probably because Tarantino doesn't have a clue about the real world and only thinks in cliches, even when it comes to the film industry. If I had anything to do with the decision making of the U.S. Military I would have sent a small group of angry black men into occupied France. Physically, they are usually more impressive then a Jewish soldier, and they had a good reason to passionately hate the Nazi's as well. I could go on but there's not much point. You can't hear me all the way up there on that bandwagon. Here's hoping you don't get any shit on you. I could care less how many great movies the man has made, the point of a critic is to look at a piece and determine its value solely on its own value. Impressive. Certainly not Tarantino's shoddy work given the name of Inglourious Basterds. No, I am talking about your impressive use of the most formal word you could possibly use at each and every opportunity. Your teacher must have the tightest ass in the history of tightest asses to force his students to go so overboard in their use of words that are guaranteed to win you a game of scrabble. There has been an argument made that Inglourious Basterds is a movie that thumbs it's nose at critics and their so called elevated perception when it comes to the things they criticize. Of course this was just another example of someone like yourself that refuses to jump of the Tarantino bandwagon, even when it is filled with shit. I am getting sick of all of these excuses that other people, trained critics and those with an untrained eye that keep excusing each and everyone of the obvious flaws of the crapfest callled Inglourious Basterdsas as signs of the brilliance of Tarantino You want to know why the title was misspelled? I would suggest you get your hands on an actual original script written by the man and then the reason should be obvious. He himself has even stated that his liability as a film maker is that his scripts are sloppy and awkward at best. Storytelling and reproducing the mojo of a spectacular scene from a movie that only 3% of the population has ever seen is his specialty. It is embarrassing that Tarantino was allowed to make such a poorly written movie, and it is even more embarrassing that critics cannot see past what he has done before to be objective enough to criticize it based on its own qualities, not on the qualities of his other movies, and certainly not the qualities that were supposedly hidden by Tarantino to prove his expertise. That last part is so absurd that it is laughable. The movie has no relationship to actual World War 2 history because it took place in the Tarantino-Verse? That has got to be one of the dumbest defense strategies for poor plotting that I have ever heard. When John Travolta was talking about the alternative name for a Quarter Pounder in France at no time did he mention anything that would imply that Tarantino France was any different from regular France. But the France of Inglourious Basterds is very different from the France in our world and the world the Vincent Vega occupied. You are obvious a very educated man, and I'm sure that your head is filled with tons of knowledge that is absent in my particularly thick head, an as such you would surely grasp that a France that played a major part in the ending of the war in the European theater during World War 2 would be vastly different from a France that needed the help of England and America. In that world it wouldn't take long for Germany to lose a majority of the countries that it occupied. Can you imagine the population in occupied Poland finding out that France, and more specifically two french citizens had easily managed to take down the creme of the Nazi elite? The Nazi's would be shown to be as foolish and dimwitted as Allied propaganda lampooned. Countries would have been liberated much quicker with the increase in resistance fighters and this would result in a very different world then the one we know that had to suffer decades of Cold War. That is just an example of how radically different the Tarantino-Inglourious Basterds-Verse would be from the so called Tarantino-Verse. It is a flimsy claim, an even more flimsy argument to support bad plotting. Tarantino wrote a horrible story that even his directing and cinematography couldn't save. From the looks of things he was too busy trying to stroke the egos of two particular types of people. One would be the French, probably because the French have loved Tarantino for a long time (Cannes Film Festival), and the other would be the Jewish community, probably because Tarantino doesn't have a clue about the real world and only thinks in cliches, even when it comes to the film industry. If I had anything to do with the decision making of the U.S. Military I would have sent a small group of angry black men into occupied France. Physically, they are usually more impressive then a Jewish soldier, and they had a good reason to passionately hate the Nazi's as well. I could go on but there's not much point. You can't hear me all the way up there on that bandwagon. Here's hoping you don't get any shit on you. I could care less how many great movies the man has made, the point of a critic is to look at a piece and determine its value solely on its own value.

]]> By: Thomashttp://www.atomicpopcorn.net/inglourious-basterds-%e2%80%94-through-the-lens-of-literature/#comment-7897 Thomas Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:07:51 +0000 http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/?p=8022#comment-7897 It's hard to decipher your grammatically deficient mega-paragraph as more than a thinly veiled attack than a constructive comment on the issue. Generally when someone takes the time and effort to write out an article and criticize something so in-depth it does denote that they have a certain level of respect for the media that they are criticizing, not necessarily that they are on any "bandwagon". Also, you will find in your continued writings that making vast generalizations will only weaken your stance instead of strengthen it.<br> <br>Your knowledge of German occupied France also seems lacking as French resistance groups regularly aided in the Allied operations that took place there. Take the invasion of Normandy beach, one of the key battles that allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France. The Maquis (Big word, don't worry it only means French Resistance Fighters) sabotaged German supply lines and prevented them from mobilizing quickly or efficiently. I recommend that you brush up on your WWII history before you start criticizing others for their lack of it. It's hard to decipher your grammatically deficient mega-paragraph as more than a thinly veiled attack than a constructive comment on the issue. Generally when someone takes the time and effort to write out an article and criticize something so in-depth it does denote that they have a certain level of respect for the media that they are criticizing, not necessarily that they are on any “bandwagon”. Also, you will find in your continued writings that making vast generalizations will only weaken your stance instead of strengthen it.

Your knowledge of German occupied France also seems lacking as French resistance groups regularly aided in the Allied operations that took place there. Take the invasion of Normandy beach, one of the key battles that allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France. The Maquis (Big word, don't worry it only means French Resistance Fighters) sabotaged German supply lines and prevented them from mobilizing quickly or efficiently. I recommend that you brush up on your WWII history before you start criticizing others for their lack of it.

]]>