Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.
This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!
While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it. While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head. You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him. It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal. He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it. Or that's how it feels to me.
In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek. His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.
That said, I still liked the movie a lot.
Tarantino is trying to be obvious in his film references. He mostly references low-brow cinema (exploitation, slasher, martial arts). He is not referencing The 400 Blows
or 8 1/2
. It is meant to be in your face and populist.
I bet anything, that if you told him:
"His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart."
he would respond; "F*CK YA, that is exactly what I want".
The difference between PTA and QT is that PTA adds small homages to his films, while QT films are ENTIRELY homages. It's the difference between a painter using black and white as an homage to Picasso's Guernica, and a collage artist creating something new by cutting and pasting together all of Picasso's art.