Tarantino's age demgraphic

[Scott H]

I'm currently pondering why movies like Sin City are Hollywood successes and why elderly styles of "traditional narrative values" are no longer as prevalent as they were back in the 30's through the 50's. Why bullets, bombs, and babes are selling tickets and why straightforward dramas are sucking hose water today. My hypotheses are as follows:

Use of CGI and the emergence of the HDCAM to ease the process of creating live stunts, explosions, wrecks, bullet shots, blood, sex, and violence.

A current trend towards the exhilarating and fast paced.

Quentin Tarantino

Flashback to Tarantino's masters, Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut.

I don't have the time or energy (it's 5:11 in the am and you're watching Scott stay up all night) to go into any detail on the whys and hows, so I'll move onto the question

All I have is one simple question:
Who do you consider Quentin Tarantino's demographic to be? You may be 50+ years old and love his work, but I'm aiming at what aged group of people generally like his work more and make up the majority of box office sales for his movies.

I ask this mangy group of message boarders this question because we are composed of a vast majority of people of many ages, and I know most of you have had some kind of experience with Tarantino's work in the age aspect. Some of you are even parents. How does having a kid affect your appeal towards his work? How does Quentin Tarantino affect you? Keep asking and answering questions. I'm curious to see at what level his popularity is right now.

-Scott H.

[Cheecky-Monkey]

I hate Tarantino's films. There nothing but swearing, violence, swearing, and....err...violence. Just my opinion.

[dean]

Tarantino's demographic is Tarantino film buffs.

But yes, I'd probably say it is geared towards perhaps a 15-40 sorta range, which I don't really see a problem with that.

If you are suggesting that his main audience is teens, you must remember that alot of his work is rated highly [eg, here, Kill Bill 1 was R18+ which meant only those above 18 could see it]

Also on your question on the difference in movies from the 30s and 50s to the ones now.  There's a lot of theories on this topic.  One common one is the MTV aesthetic, in which many blockbuster movies are edited much like an MTV video clip: quick cuts with the aim of doing as much as possible in the 90 minutes you are shown the film.

You could also talk about the relaxing of the Hays Code, general social changes etc.  Or blame it all on Spielberg.  Either way.

Also, straightfoward drama's certainly aren't 'sucking hose water.'  There's a lot of good quality dramas out there.

I'm turning 21 soon, and I'm a big fan of Tarantino [to answer sort of, your question], but he is by no means the be all and end all in the directors chair.  He's popular with alot of people, but probably has annoyed a hell of a lot more as well, so I guess its down to personal opinion.

I like his work because for the most part it just works.  Music, editing and dialogue are quite often top notch, and acting is superb.  He quite simply just doesn't make the usual Hollywood slop, and this is why I like his work.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I'm with Dean, 15-40.  I'm sure a lot of people would say that his main demographic is with teenagers but you have to consider how many people saw Reservior Dogs or Pulp Fictions when they were in their 20s in the early 90s.  Those same people are now in the 30 range.

I think people like Tarantino because his films although derivative of other films have a "cool" about them.  The dialogue although not realistic is fantastic as is his sense of direction.  Not my favorite director, but I do love his work.

[AndyC]

I'd probably lean toward the older end of the 15 to 40 myself. These are the people who would have watched the old kung-fu, western and blaxploitation flicks that have strongly influenced Tarantino's work. What I, and probably a lot of people on this board, like about his work is that it is steeped in the sort of cheesy old movies we love.

But if I were talking about the trend toward fast-paced action movies full of explosions, CGI and other crap, or movies that pollute kids' minds, Tarantino would not be the name that comes to mind. Some of his best work has been very talky, relying more on storytelling and characterization than on fast-paced action. In many ways, he's old-fashioned. I doubt that the average kid would even have the attention span for much of his earlier work. As for his more action-packed films, such as Kill Bill, even my wife (I thought she'd be appalled by it) saw it for the parody it was. The violence was too over-the-top to be taken seriously.

Not that I'm a huge fan (I don't own a single one of his films), but Tarantino is very good at making a certain type of movie.

If I were pointing fingers, I'd look to some of the many recent mainstream blockbusters that all seem to run together in my memory, the sort that many people would have no question about taking their kids to see. These would be the movies where everybody is young and attractive, there is the barest of plots, no dialogue worth hearing, and the violence almost looks like fun. Basically, the crap that gets released every summer. Tarantino has made a handful of films, while large quantities of far more questionable stuff is being cranked out in Hollywood all the time, with profit as the only consideration.

Normally, I wouldn't care so much, but we seem to have somebody here with a Tarantino fixation, and not much knowledge to back up the accusations. The puzzling question of demographics just seems like an attempt to find support for a poorly-based assumption that the man makes movies for dumb teenagers. That would be Paul W.S. Anderson.



Post Edited (04-11-05 10:27)

[Neville]

I'm with AndyC. Many movies today seem stupid and bothering only in movig at light speed through all kinds of CGI enhanced set-pieces, true, but Tarantine, you like him or not, has very little to do with it.

I was a great Tarantino fan at the beginning, but his later films are not, IMHO, as accomplished as his earlier works. I tend to feel he just does movies to himself. Of course, part of his charm is that, as AndyC pointed out, he is sort of an old-fashioned guy, but his later stuff seems made only for his own enjoyment, and that is certainly a problem for me. I wanto to enjoy them, but I somehow can't.

Of course, he is `partially to blame for other things. Tarantino may be a talented filmmaker, but the thousands of filmmakers that imitate him are not. I'm sick of listening to oh-so-cool-intrascendent dialogue and watching scenes where-bloody-violence-starts-at-the-strangest-moment, among many other things. But as I said, blame the imitators, not the original.

[Scott H.]

Normally, I wouldn't care so much, but we seem to have somebody here with a Tarantino fixation, and not much knowledge to back up the accusations. The puzzling question of demographics just seems like an attempt to find support for a poorly-based assumption that the man makes movies for dumb teenagers. That would be Paul W.S. Anderson.

Listen mister prissy pants in a bunch. I'm curious about Tarantino because I'm writing about the movie Sin City for class, and because Tarantino worked on the movie as a "guest" director. He and Rodriguez are good friends (they also worked together on another movie called Four Rooms. Rodriguez directed "The Misbehaviors" segment) I merely want to know more about other people's opinions about Tarantino, and since you are just proving how impossible it can be to get straight answers out of people, I won't bother to ask for your opinion any more.

Thank you and good bye

Scott H.

[AndyC]

Maybe you should have asked a straight question.

[Archivist]

AndyC, I love that quote in your sig.  Where is it from?

As for Tarantino, I have no particular liking for his movies.  Pulp Fiction was utterly boring and stupid, Dusk 'Til Dawn was fun but not much better than 'fun', and Kill Bill was the only Tarantino movie I have really liked, due to the pastiche of homages to old kung fu, spaghetti westerns and yojimbo-type movies from the past.

So many people rave about QT, but I have yet to find his appeal.

[h.p. Love]

Robert Rodriguez directed the blood-drenched From Dusk Til Dawn. :)

[Archivist]

Rodriguez?  Oh, woops!  :-)

[Wence]

Cheecky-Monkey wrote:

> I hate Tarantino's films. There nothing but swearing, violence,
> swearing, and....err...violence. Just my opinion.

That´s absolutely the same what I think about his sorry efforts.

This guy has ideas of plots that are just childish. I didn´t watch KillBill because I knew the story already (because friends told me) and... man... that plot is simply a load of crap!

Most of the people I know (or met) who like Tarantino´s films are in the most cases male and estimately between 14-25 - that´s the group of teens and tweens that has greatest affinity towards the mainstream-incredient "cool violence" I think.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Archivist,

AndyC's quote is from The Eliminators if I remember correctly.

As for From Dusk Til Dawn, it was kinda a half and half thing.  Rodriguez did direct it, but the screenplay was all Tarantino.  By far one of the best monster flicks to come out of the 90s.

One of the great things about Tarantino is that his work ages well.  Look at Reservior Dogs and tell me it doesn't hold up almost perfectly 14 years later.  For me, Pulp Fiction is just as entertaining and engrossing as it was when it was first released.

As I said in my previous post, Tarantino isn't my favorite director out there, but the word "fanboy" does apply to me when it comes to his films.  You have to consider just how much his work has changed modern cinema.  How many ripoffs have there been of Reservior Dogs and Pulp Fiction?  The man just has a knack for knowing what people want and giving it to them.

Sure he takes quite a bit from other films.  Reservior Dogs was based quite heavily on 1987's "Long hu feng yun" which is a fantastic film in it's own right.  But, who really cares?  The films are fun, energetic and dare I say it - inspiring.  

The man still doesn't hold a candle to David Fincher though.  :o)

[h.p. Love]

Skaboi wrote:

> As for From Dusk Til Dawn, it was kinda a half and half thing.
> Rodriguez did direct it, but the screenplay was all Tarantino.
> By far one of the best monster flicks to come out of the 90s.

I enjoy From Dusk Til Dawn more now than when I first saw it. My favorite Rodriguez offering is still El Mariachi followed by FDTD and Sin City (although I wasn't blown away by it, but I'll rent it).

ARCHIVIST: It's easy to forget that Tarantino didn't direct FDTD, that fact was a little blurred when it was released since he did write it and act in it. And Rodriguez had a very similar style in his earlier stuff. Don't forget TRUE ROMANCE which he also wrote.  I still think Jackie Brown is short-changed. I thought it was a great throwback to late 70s crime flicks with a slower pace and great character development. The Kill Bills were fun but some of the slower moments didn't really fit in but overall I liked the films.

I think it's interesting that Tarantino writes his own scripts and directs everything down to the last detail. My favorites are still Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I think the older films hold up because they are so influenced by older films. I also find it interesting that he shuns CGI. In Kill Bill the final battle used magnetic arms for the chopping off effect. In Sin City he directed the short scene where the women (one with samuria sword) attack the goons in the car. Rodriguez was trying to turn him on to using green screens.

I may be a fanboy in that I'll continue to check out whatever he's involved in. There is always something better than everything else out in them.  There is always some great dialogue and interesting music and memorable scenes. And he probably will never do a remake.

[BoyScoutKevin]

It seemed straight enough for me. I understood what Scott H. was asking.

As how "Does Tarantino affect me?" I think at times he can be a good actor, director, and writer, but he has not done anything I have any interest in seeing all the way through. Five minutes into "Pulp Fiction," which, I believe, is regarded as his finest film to date, I knew I wanted to see something else and changed the channel. I think it is the way he uses violence in his films. Of course, I'll never see 40 again neither.

As for films then and now, I think the perfect example is "Flight of the Phoenix." I have not see the remake, nor do I have any interest in seeing the remake, but I did see the original once on television, and though it has been years since I've seen it. I still remember much of it. And besides the original having a better cast and director (IMHO), what separates it from the remake, is the lack of action sequences in the original. From previews of the remake that I have seen on television, there is more action in the previews then in the entire original. Indeed, for the most part, any deaths you saw in the orignal were during the first plane crash. Any deaths occurring after that, for the most part, occurred off screen.