Talk:Quentin Tarantino/Archive 6

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lcerone. Peer reviewers: Smazurk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Two nebulous project
Quentin Tarantino is alleged to have co-directed and acted in a short film called Love Birds in Bondage and acted in a DTV called Vegetables. Which I have not added until I have another source than Imdb.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959459/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_36 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959602/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_33

Anyone knows something.Filmman3000 (talk) 03:48, August 13, 2018 (UTC)

Phil Collins Video Sussudio
In the music video of this song you can clearly see Quentin Tarantino at 0:55 minutes!!! Maxvorstadt (talk) 19:48, February 8, 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked at the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0qBaBb1Y-U&t=55s) but that doesn't look like Tarantino. RandomGuyDTB (talk) 20:58, April 8, 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I watched it again (at 0.25 speed) and in the moment he turns his face to the camera he looks exactly like Quentin Tarantino. The mouth, the eyes, even the forehead. But I agree, that we can`t base an info in the article on just one meaning. So there should look others too into the video and I will search the net for clues now. Maxvorstadt (talk) 18:49, June 4, 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm, after searching the web, I found out that many people are asking if this guy in the video is QT, but I didn`t find an official statement about it. Weird. Is he or is he not in the video?Maxvorstadt (talk) 19:48, June 4, 2019 (UTC)

Nah man, that isn't him. It looks like him, but it ain't.165.73.227.21 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You hate to see it.
I know no one is going to care to address these six citation needed templates. So it might be time to delist this Good Article. Trillfendi (talk) 18:15, September 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely late to this however I have added some of the missing references. I'm taking a look through the article again to see if I missed anything. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:03, April 19, 2020 (UTC)

production accident
Is there any evidence that this sub-section Quentin_Tarantino is a notable controversy as related to the article's subject? It is already covered over at Kill_Bill:_Volume_1 and why is it duplicated on this page if the Thurman herself says she attributes the blame to Weinstein? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:12, September 30, 2019 (UTC)


 * Was definitely excessive. Same as Bruce Lee. I trimmed them down and added redirects to the specific sections on the film pages. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name
One may question the place where the scan is located on the web, but there's this signed birth certificate-like document about his adoption by Curtis Zastoupil issued by the Office of Vital Records (of Knoxville or Tennessee?), which gives Quentin's mother's maiden name as Connie Sue McHugh: --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:9103:95A4:7C8A:1BEC (talk) 20:24, November 25, 2020 (UTC)
 * MyHeritage.com also gives her maiden name as McHugh (see Curtis Zastoupil's first marriage entered in 1966, divorced 1973). Her first name is not given, but her last name is. --2003:DA:CF17:EF00:9103:95A4:7C8A:1BEC (talk) 21:57, November 25, 2020 (UTC)

My Best Friend's Birthday (1987)
I was looking at the page and I did not see this film was referenced in his filmography chart. Do you think this is a film worth mentioning? He wrote and directed the film in 1987. Craig Hamann is also credited as a writer. He also had a short in 1983 called "Love Birds in Bondage".  ***DISREGARD I found it being mentioned...My mistake!'''

SeanRMull (talk) 20:35, December 14, 2020 (UTC)

Atheism

 * ''As a youth, Tarantino attended an Evangelical church, describing himself as "baptized, born again and everything inbetween." Tarantino said this was an act of rebellion against his Roman Catholic mother, as she had encouraged his interests in comic books and horror films. Throughout the 1990s, Tarantino was evasive about his specific religion despite making it clear that he believed in God. In recent interviews, Tarantino ascribes his talents to gifts from God although he expresses uncertainty regarding God's existence. "I think I was born Catholic, but I was never practiced," said Tarantino. "As time has gone on, as I've become a man and made my way further as an adult, I'm not sure how much any of that I believe in. I don't really know if I believe in God, especially not in this Santa Claus character that people seemed to have conjured up."

Why is this article dancing around his atheism? He admitted he's an atheist tonight on Real Time. Shouldn't his Wikipedia entry at least make this clear? Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that. Just that the statements he's made which don't fall into any neat category. If he's outright said "I am a committed atheist, I retract my previous statements," cite the Real Time source and add it to the article. EDIT: I looked at the recent edit to the article. Considering the video where he stated he's an atheist went up literally a day ago at the time of me writing this, I don't think it's fair to claim we're "dancing around" his atheism. I also don't really think he "admitted" anything. It looks like this was a slow process where he gradually lost faith over the decades and only just now stated he's an outright atheist. Up to this point, he spent decades making varying claims. Look at his early statements about being a committed Evangelical Christian in his youth. Watch his 1990s interviews with Charlie Rose where he says he believes in God but follows no religion. Look at his recent statements about believing that his writing ability is a God-given talent despite "not really believing in God." He was never hiding anything, his views just changed over time. It happens more than you'd think, even if most people like to whitewash their history so it seems like they always held what they now consider to be the correct position (and who knows, Tarantino might start whitewashing his own history, but we've got decades of his statements recorded on video and audio). Lynchenberg (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to argue with you, but your claims about his earlier films having overt religious references is garbage, as is your rationale for removing him from the atheists category, which I can only describe as discrimination on your part. Just because a film like Pulp Fiction, for example, dabbles with religious symbolism, particularly in relation to their characters, doesn't make Tarantino ineligible for the atheists category. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You've completely misinterpreted my rational for removing him from the atheists category. Someone saying "I'm an atheist, I'm a Catholic, or I'm a Muslim" are not sufficient grounds for including them in these categories. It has to be a relevant part of their public life. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. If you don't believe me, look it up. Your accusations of "discrimination" are also ridiculous. I'm the one who keeps adding the information that Kevin Smith became an atheist to his article, even though people keep removing this information despite it being sourced. I'm the one who edited the article on Guillermo Del Toro years ago to clarify he was an atheist and holds negative views on the Roman Catholic Church. Recently, I added a massive amount of material to the Garth Ennis article clarifying his reasons for not believing in God and feeling antipathy toward religion. I'm also the guy who edited the David Cronenberg article to discuss the role atheism plays in his work, which is significant enough to include him in the atheists category. As for my comments about Tarantino's earlier films (not just Pulp Fiction, but also From Dusk Till Dawn and Kill Bill) having religious content, it's equally ridiculous to claim I was using that to justify removing him from the atheists category. I was saying that it would be ridiculous to include him in the Christians category even if he had said "I am a Christian" because that has no bearing on his public life or his work save for some Christian influence in these films (which Tarantino was open about at the time if you look it up--not that it matters, as it's not relevant to including a religion category). It's as simple as this: the Catholic influence on Martin Scorsese movies is huge and it's a big part of his public image, so he goes in the Catholics category; the Episcopalian influence on Martin Rosen films is nonexistent so he doesn't go in the Episcopalian category despite how he self-identifies; Shane MacGowan referencing religion in a few songs and saying he's a Catholic who prays to Buddha are not sufficient grounds for putting him in either the Buddhists or Catholics category. If you don't like it, take it up with Wikipedia as it's their rules, not mine. If it was up to me, we wouldn't have religion categories at all except for those who have held clergy roles and those who are atheism advocates. Lynchenberg (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This should be a PROTECTED article.
This is a pretty important guy. And a lot of people would agree with me if it came to him this should be protected. Before some idiot ruins it.

Also, I didn't read anything about him beating up Don Murphy (who produced Natural Born Killers, and that movie was written by Quentin but then drastically re-written by Oliver Stone into whatever the hell it became.).





165.73.227.21 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Influences don't include Jean-Luc Godard????
If you've ONLY seen Breathless, Band of Outsiders, and La Chinoise, and you've seen at least Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Inglourious Basterds, and The Hateful Eight, the influence sticks out like sore thumb.

For example: Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) in Pulp Fiction is not only made up to resemble Odile in Band of Outsiders, but both films have an ionic dance number.

The chapter numbering and descriptions of many of Quentin Tarantino's films follow Godard's use to titles separating sections of La Chinoise.

In many of his films there are references in dialogue to other films, just as Godard does.

For more:

Mumon7 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Chapter numbering and referential dialogue isn't in itself a Godard invention/influence, but if there is a source saying Tarantino is a direct influence on Tarantino, feel free to add it. SweetTaylorJames (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't it mention Kurrajong?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably worth mentioning that Q's old production company owes its name to a certain film of Godard's. 2A02:8109:A080:254C:178D:4A35:F9BC:3641 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Foot fetishism
The source given to back up that his films feature ‘foot fetishism’ clearly shows that Tarantino considers it merely a piece of direction to feature shots of feet and not fetishistic. This is also a very minor detail of his films and clearly not a defining feature of his craft. This prominent mention should therefore be removed. 81.109.85.15 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this really the main subject for "Tarantino"?
There is a language dialect called this, and other people with this surname, I'm not sure that needs to be the redirect for "Tarantino." Middle river exports (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Middle river exports, I would first create a page Tarantino (disambiguation), which includes all listings from Tarantino (surname), a listing for Tarantino language, and a listing for Quentin Tarantino. You'd then want to go Talk:Tarantino (disambiguation) and do a move request and specifically look at section WP:RSPM for how to do the requested move nomination. TartarTorte 20:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes that makes sense. I can do this when I have more time later. Cheers --Middle river exports (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Middle river exports Feel free to ping me if you need any help/don't have the time to do so, but also there is no deadline. TartarTorte 03:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done at Talk:Tarantino (disambiguation). I have opted to just link the Tarantino (surname) page instead of duplicating its contents, as that article contains information about the origin of the name which is helpful and I would rather not duplicate or merge it. Middle river exports (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Question on lack of detail about early life
Just curious why there isn’t more detail about his upbringing in Knoxville: it just jumps right to his early film career! Never seen that in a Wikipedia entry before and I find that curious. Hell, this entry doesn't even address basic info such as who his mother is (or was). Does Mr QT have some exceptional influence regarding what is published here beyond the norm? I heard he worked as a 7-11 clerk writing early scripts for future films before he was ‘discovered’. Any truth to that? 2600:1012:B1CB:1599:CDA0:6310:F512:2E2B (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Retire at sixty or after ten films
Last year QT did an episode of a podcast called Pure Cinema where he joked about quitting after ten films. This was referenced in quite a few articles as being serious and a reiteration of his earlier comments. Just after this QT went on WTF with Marc Maron and was clear about that he had a giggle in his voice when he said that. He does go on to say something like "I still got..." and is then cut off by Maron.

I don't know what is the best way to reference this since WTF does not have the whole archive online. There is a copy of the episode on YouTube but that is no good as a reference either.

You can verify what the information for now by listening to the interview. Start at about 1:08:45 (pasting the url should take you to the timestamp).

https://youtu.be/cwEYLG_h_cY?t=4125

Óli Gneisti (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * He has been serious about quitting after ten in far, far more interviews than these. He has other projects coming up which include more fiction books, non-fiction books, a TV series, one or more plays, etc., but I don't think there's any question that there's only one more film based on his current plans. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

He has been so in the past. People change their plans. Maron asked him a direct question and he said he wasn't quitting after ten films. Óli Gneisti (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately he doesn't say that in the Maron interview. The "I still got" doesn't seem to be in reference to more films. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC for lead summary amendment
Seeking comments regarding changes to the opening paragraph for the lead. Rvert (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The following amendment will become the second and third sentence s of the opening paragraph:


 * His films are characterized by stylized violence, extended dialogue, profanity, dark humor, non-linear storylines, cameos, ensemble casts, and references to popular culture. Other directorial tropes associated with Tarantino include the use of songs from the 1960s and 70s, fictional brand parodies, and the prominent framing of women's bare feet.

The sentences comply with the WP:LEAD guidance and is a summary of the Style section. Do commenting editors support or oppose this amendment? Rvert (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE See comments below regarding the change/reduction in wording. If editors disagree, make your views known, otherwise the change will be made accordingly. Rvert (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * My preference would be:
 * His films are often characterized by stylized violence, extended dialogue, profanity, dark humor, non-linear storylines, cameos, ensemble casts, and references to popular culture. Other directorial tropes associated with Tarantino include the use of songs from the 1960s and 70s and fictional brand parodies.
 * Given the debates over the feet point on the talk page in the past, I wouldn't include it, but that's just one vote from me. My main preference is that "often characterized" part, as each quality is in the majority but usually not all of his films. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with "often characterized". Regarding the omission of "the prominent framing of women's bare feet”, my perspective is explained below as it includes comments for other editors with different views on the same subject. Rvert (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer often characterized by
 * Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - The summary is supposed to be an objective representation of QT's work and should not treat him with reverence. The bare feet imagery is often written about and also an object of satire, with many (reliably sourced) examples. He acknowledges this and considers it as good direction. I get the sense other editors are uncomfortable or embarrassed with this aspect and want to shield the reader and ignore it; considering it a minor feature because they don't want to tarnish the "hip and cool Tarantino" image. His work is controversial, so this detail being "contentious" shouldn't be the reason for its omission from the lead. Rvert (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This isn't an improvement. It doesn't read well and adds WP:UNDUE details that are not central to Tarantino's biography of work. The current lead is fine. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is about characteristics. The second sentence is about tropes; similar to Hitchcock cameos which are not central but have been referenced in popular culture. I've provided a chart below to help you regarding the "Characterizations and tropes". Note that only one characterization is consistent throughout QT's films. Rvert (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't find your argument compelling. I stand by my original comment. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This isn't an improvement. It doesn't read well and adds WP:UNDUE details that are not central to Tarantino's … work. per Nemov. The current lead is -if anything- bordering on being overdetailed, but it presents his movies' principal defining characteristics. The 'feet filming' is not presented in the body as an especially important - or unique/defining - feature of his films. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See my response above to Nemov Rvert (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Support minus the feet thing. I don't think it's notable enough for the lead. Cessaune (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah This RfC is malformed and fails WP:RFCBRIEF. I also dont see any reason to add WP:WEASEL word "often" to the first sentence in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you think "often" is a WEASEL term compared to the current sentence in the article that uses the word "frequent"? The chart below will help you regarding the "Characterizations and tropes". Note that only one characterization is consistent throughout QT's films. Rvert (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I dont see it as an improvement. Frequently going to the toilet and often going to the toilet seems to mean more to me (at least to me). Have to state I am not too particular on this one term. My bigger objection to this is I feel it adds too many words to the sentence making it not readable. We dont need every characterization of the subject in the first sentence, so why try to jam them all in to it. I think if you were trying to change a few to a few it might be ok, but this looks like trying to change a few to many, then it is tedious. Even supports above minus the feet (meaning it is just too much to propose as part of an RFC. Maybe refocus on the RFC and pick a couple words you want to add and a couple words you suggest to delete (and why). I am not an expert on this article subject and it looks like you are, that is great. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there are too many on the list. I will change/reduce the sentence based on your experienced, uninvolved and impartial advice. The update to the sentence will be "stylized violence, extended dialogue, profanity and references to popular culture" as these are the most central. If other editors disagree with the wording then they can come to this section. Rvert (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I object and this discussion should be closed. If you want to make other changes then you can create a separate discussion. Nemov (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion continues as the above comments/advice relate to the same sentence. If you insist, I will start a new RFC. Rvert (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need for another RfC. Just create a new discussion to see if there's support for your idea. Nemov (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * An RFC is my choice for a new discussion. Rvert (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I caution you review WP:RFCBEFORE otherwise I would recommend a procedural close if you open another RfC without a proper discussion. Also, you're approaching WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

My original focus was on a representative list. However, a suggestion by another editor has made me aware that this sentence can be improved with fewer terms.


 * Amended sentence:


 * His films are characterized by stylized violence, extended dialogue including the pervasive use of profanity and references to popular culture.


 * Removed terms:


 * film genres, dark humor, non-linear storylines, cameos and ensemble casts.

It's a tighter sentence and covers the main themes. Your views on the amended sentence (i.e. wording not procedures) will help me decide on how the discussion continues. Rvert (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Characterizations and tropes


 * {{legend|#b6fcb6| background highlights "tropes"|}}

Discussion

 * There doesn't seem like much reason to push this through a formal close. There's no consensus for this change. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023
In the collaboration section, Samuel L. Jackson has been in 6 movies, not 4. 24.184.1.116 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This should NOT be a PROTECTED article.
The reasons given above that this should be a protected article -- that Quentin Tarantino is a "pretty important guy" and that people would allegedly agree with the poster's own opinion -- are purely subjective, and of ridiculous criteria. We can't protect every article about every "pretty important guy." Furthermore, the current protection prevents the correction of multiple embarrassingly amateurish grammatical errors. 65.51.145.131 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! What is your edit request?  Mike   Allen   21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Frequent collaborators
In the past this table has been taken down, and aside from original research the other main criticism has been that listing actors who have only appeared in two films is illogical. I tend to agree, as a second hiring is really just a reflection of Tarantino's satisfaction with one performance/production experience with the actor, 3+ seems to be a more accurate reflection of an ongoing professional relationship. What do people think? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind the collaboration chart from a reader perspective, but as you say there is some original research (a source column may help). You also need to clarify where the measure/reference is that 3+ performances are better than 2+. Rvert (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of pages that use the 3+, like Wes Anderson and Lars von Trier. If we stick to two that's fine, but it just doesn't seem to justify the language "many times" or relate to the 'repertory' concept.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Titanic
The article discusses his love of many films, why not Titanic, precisely the sort of film you wouldn't expect him not to like, to reveal his eclectic tastes? Also, if the Titanic wiki page discusses Robert Altman's opinion of it, why not QT's?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023
in the section "collaboraters" it reads: "Most notable of these is Samuel L. Jackson, who has appeared in four films directed by Tarantino and a fifth written by him, True Romance"

Samuel L. Jackson now has worked in 6 films directed and 7 if you include true romance, a fact which that following table shows. 2A01:C22:C9BB:7C00:30C7:8192:63DB:E1B5 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes to lead
I asked @Rvert to find consensus for the lead change. Rvert made the change anyway bizarrly citing "TALK." I rolled back the change pointing out the lack of consensus. The new version isn't an improvement. Rvert has reverted without further discussion. I would urge the editor to find consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've "cherry-picked" the diffs to give your own narrative. That isn't how the  discussion evolved.  Editors can see the earlier RFC.  When another experienced editor advised the RFC be reframed and the wording reduced to be less "tedious; I agreed.  The redrafted sentence is meant to be a summary, therefore every detail doesn't have to be in the lead and the main themes are enough. Rvert (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023
Change "Tarnentino" to "Tarantino" in the image caption. 185.154.228.48 (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liu1126 (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)