Talk:Quentin Tarantino

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quentin Tarantino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Two MoS issues: 1. I think the Portal bar should go lower down, per MOS:ORDER. 2. The awards section should have a bit of text summarizing the main article, per WP:SS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See the "Statements needing citations" section below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   To achieve the "comprehensive coverage" requirement of FA, I think the "Influences and style of filmmaking" would just need to be beefed up.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Just one sentence that has a problem with neutral wording: "Tarantino further infuriated the veteran journalist with his furious rant". I'm still ambivalent about having a "Controversies" section, and would strongly recommend trying to integrate its content into other parts of the article in the future (cf. WP:STRUCTURE). But I'll admit the actual coverage of the topics within that section is even-handed, so it's not a blocker for GA.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not necessary for GA, but a greater variety of images would definitely be nice. Right now 5/6 of the images in the article are photos of QT from around 2007 to present. If you were able to find any appropriately licensed photos of QT from, say, pre-2000, I think that would be a boon. Also, one or two more images depicting something other than QT himself would be welcome (e.g. in the "Influences and style of filmmaking").

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Preliminary review with more detailed comments (on issues that have mostly since been resolved) are below.

---

Hi, let me just start by saying this is my first GA review, so I'm still learning the process. If you think any of my comments are out of scope of the good article criteria, let me know. Preliminary review below.

On the whole, I think this article is in a pretty good state. There are four problem areas that I think would need to be improved for it to meet the GA criteria (which I'll elaborate on shortly):

1. The lead is a bit too long.
2. Some of the "Controversies" content is undersourced, and some of it would benefit from merging into a different part of the article.
3. The lead makes some great points about his film-making style which are never elaborated on in the body.
4. The long series of lists that dominate the second half of the article. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH, I think some of it should be split into a separate article. Some of it should be removed or turned into prose.

1. Intro length

MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends generally no more than 4 paragraphs for the lead. This article is at exactly four, and the middle two are quite long. I think it could benefit from some trimming.

Consider removing the plot summaries of individual films from the lead. Reservoir Dogs has no description of its content, and Pulp Fiction is just described as "a black comedy crime film". I think these are fine. But later films get more description, e.g. Inglourious Basterds, which tells the fictional alternate history story of two plots to assassinate Nazi Germany's political leadership or His eighth film, the mystery-Western The Hateful Eight, was released in its roadshow version December 25, 2015, in 70 mm film format, complete with opening "overture" and halfway-point intermission, after the fashion of big-budget films of the 1960s and early 1970s. Similarly, I think something like It became the highest-grossing film of his career thus far, making over $425 million at the box office. is a detail that could be excised from the lead.

Agreed. I've condensed the lead based on your suggestions, plus other minor clean up. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

2. Controversies

To start, I'll note that WP:CSECTION advises against "Controversies" sections in general. That's not a mark against GA status (I'm sure there are lots of Good Articles that have such sections), but I think the points in that essay are relevant, particularly the uneasy tension between a "Controversies" section and WP:NPOV. I think merging some of these subsections into other parts of the article would be salutary both in terms of NPOV, and having a more natural flow.

(FWIW, I was curious enough to spot-check a bunch of biographical featured articles, and I didn't find any that had a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section, even on articles where you might expect one like Walt Disney, Janet Jackson, Courtney Love, Evelyn Waugh, etc. Take that for what you will.)

Anyways, some comments on specific subsections below...

• § Gun violence

• I don't think there are sufficient citations in this section to establish that any substantial controversy exists here. The 1996 quote is cited, but there's no indication that what he said was controversial or widely discussed. Same story with the second paragraph (though perhaps some of this content could be merged into the "Influences and style of filmmaking" section, where his depictions of violence are discussed).
  • I mostly agree, and I've removed the 1996 quote after searching online for some sense of controversy surrounding the quote and being unable to find one. I've slightly expanded the rest of the gun violence section and added additional references. I'm not opposed to ultimately removing this altogether, but "guns in media" has traditionally been a polarizing issue, and Tarantino standing on both sides of the debates (he's pro-gun control, but also makes extremely violent films) certainly creates controversy, at least a minor one. I'm welcome to further conversation on the subject, though. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}
    • Looking at the current state of the section, I feel like most of the content (his use of violence in his films, his opinion on whether violence in media causes violent behaviour, and his reaction to Sandy Hook) is already covered organically in other places. I feel like this section could be safely deleted. Not a GA requirement though, just my opinion. Colin M (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• § The Hateful Eight

• I think this content is more appropriate for The Hateful Eight (and indeed it seems to already be covered there).
  • Agreed and done. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

• § Harvey Weinstein
• § Uma Thurman

• Could the content of these two subsections be merged into § Frequent collaborators? (There's also a mention at the end of the "Career" section of him severing ties with Weinstein, which could possibly be expanded)
  • I've merged the Thurman section into the Weinstein section. Ultimately, this section could be moved to a different part of the article, but for now I would think that while a Controversy section does exist, this would be the most appropriate place in the article. If we eventually decide to remove the Controversy section altogether, then let's cross that bridge then? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

• § Racial slurs

• This seems like the only one that truly stands as a bona fide controversy deserving of its own section. That said, it could perhaps be nested under "Influences and style of filmmaking", since this is a controversy revolving around a distinctive recurring element of his films.
• With regards to this section's content, I think it could present the issue to the reader more clearly by providing some more context. Which of QT's films have used the slur under discussion (/which films originally prompted this controversy)? When did Spike Lee raise the issue?
  • With regards to the first bullet point, I'd say moving the racial slurs section necessarily depends on if the "Controversy" section is kept as a whole or not. My vote would be to keep it, but I'm also not strongly attached. For now, I'll leave "racial slurs" where it is. I have, however, as you bring up in the 2nd bullet point, clarified a few points and provided another source. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

3. Filmmaking style

I really love the first paragraph of the intro starting from the second sentence:

His films are characterized by nonlinear storylines; satirical subject matter; an aestheticization of violence; extended scenes of dialogue; ensemble casts consisting of established and lesser-known performers; references to popular culture and a wide variety of other films; soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s; and features of neo-noir film.

But per WP:SUMMARY, each of the points summarized in the lead should be detailed in the article. Some of the features in the above paragraph are discussed at § Influences and style of filmmaking, but it seems like the following get no attention in the body:

• nonlinear storylines
• extended scenes of dialogue
• use of lesser-known performers. (I think it's probably also worth mentioning his notoriety for effective casting of actors whose stars had faded, e.g. Robert Forster, Pam Grier, David Carradine, and especially John Travolta, whose career he's said to have revived)
• references to pop culture and other films
• "soundtracks primarily containing songs and score pieces from the 1960s to the 1980s"

I think these could be expanded on in § Influences and style of filmmaking (which should probably be broken into subsections).

Ok, I've made several changes to this section and added new sources. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

4. Tables

This last one is a bit of a doozy. I think there's a readability issue towards the end of the article. Starting from § Filmography up until the references, the article content is almost entirely lists and tables - about 5-6 screen lengths worth on my monitor. I think some of this content should be split into a separate article, and some should probably be prosified/removed.

§ Frequent collaborators

As a Tarantino fan, this is interesting to me. As a Wikipedia editor, it makes me leery. One big concern I have with it is readability. I can tell effort has been taken to make it compact (e.g. by reducing font size), but it's unreadable on mobile and takes up most of the screen when viewed on a 1920x1080 display. If Tarantino directs one more movie and we need to add another column, it's going to explode. See Martin_Scorsese#Frequent_collaborators for an example where this goes off the rails. My other issue is whether it constitutes unnecessary detail. Do we really need a list of every actor who has appeared in more than one QT film in his article? Including actors like Bo Svenson who apparently only appeared in minor roles/cameos? Finally, there's a WP:OR angle - it may be verifiably true that, e.g. Laura Cayouette appeared in two QT films, but lacking a source talking about their work together, is it OR to describe them as "frequent collaborator" or imply they have some kind of special relationship?

Apparently Christopher Nolan (which is a GA) used to have such a table, but consensus was to remove it. You can find the discussion here.

My recommendation would be to remove the table, and summarize its key aspects in prose. The first paragraph of § Frequent collaborators actually does a good job of this already. You could add to it, or just leave it as is.

Agreed and done. I don't like these types of tables in general, so this is a good excuse to address it. I've added a couple lines of prose to the section, and removed the table. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

§ Awards

This section is a slog to scroll through. Per WP:SUMMARY, I think this would be a good candidate for splitting into a separate article like List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. This seems like a pretty common practice for prolific artists who have been nominated for lots of awards. If you do so, I would also merge "Other lifetime honors" into it.

I've moved this to List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

§ Awards received by Tarantino films

Again, while I personally find this interesting, I think it's an excessive level of detail for his Wikipedia article. The most important award wins and noms as well as the general critical reception of each film are already given in the "Career" section when talking about the film. If I want to know precisely how many Oscars/BAFTAs a particular film won or was nominated for, I can go to its article. If you did create List of awards and nominations received by Quentin Tarantino, there's perhaps an argument for including this information there, though it seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me.

Done. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

§ Reception

Basically ditto the above. If this table were to be preserved somewhere, I think it would be a better fit for Quentin Tarantino filmography. For example, Seth Rogen filmography has a section dedicated to critical reception of his major works, Woody Allen filmography has columns for boc office gross and Rotten Tomatoes score.

Done – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

§ Directed Academy Award performances

This list is short and interesting, but:

1. there's a minor wording issue with the phrase "Academy Award performance". "Directed Academy Award nominated performances" would be more accurate, though wordy. I'd consider whether you can arrange it so that it's introduced with a sentence of prose, rather than a heading (unless anyone can think of less awkward wording).

Done – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

1. It seems like a bit of a non-sequitur appearing in the "Filmography" section. Perhaps a better fit for the "Awards" section? (Or the awards article, if you agree with my proposal to split)

I had some other thoughts, but they're more along the lines of suggested improvements rather than strict requirements for GA, and I've already written a lot, so I'll stop here for now. Colin M (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Colin M! I'll begin going through it this week/weekend and will respond back here soon. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Several changes (comments above) done. Will continue this tomorrow. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, appreciate the quick turnaround! Adding two more sections below. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Acting roles and due weight in § Career

In some places in the § Career section, I felt that some time was spent describing work (especially acting roles) that wasn't particularly significant or noteworthy in the context of his career.

This mostly happens in the Quentin Tarantino § 1990s: Breakthrough subsection. For example:

• Also in 1992, he played an asylum attendant in Jeff Burr's Eddie Presley starring Duane Whitaker in the title role.
• He had a cameo appearance in Sleep With Me, an American comedy-drama film starring Meg Tilly, Eric Stoltz and Craig Sheffer. The film was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival. He also played the role of a bartender in Somebody to Love directed by Alexandre Rockwell. It entered the competition at the 51st Venice International Film Festival.
• In 1995, he appeared as Desmond in one episode of All-American Girl. Shortly after, Tarantino appeared in Destiny Turns on the Radio, an American comedy film, with Dylan McDermott, Nancy Travis, James LeGros, and James Belushi.

The paragraph about his acting credits in 1994 is longer than the paragraph that talks about Pulp Fiction! I would trim a lot of the mentions of his acting roles, unless you can justify why they were significant in the context of his career. (e.g. if it was his first acting role, if he played a major part, if his acting was nominated for any awards or commented on by critics, etc.)

Another option I really like is to have a separate subsection specifically about his career as an actor (similar to the § As producer subsection you have now). I would still try to winnow down the specific roles discussed to ones that are particularly interesting or significant, but it would be a good opportunity to also discuss some general aspects of QT as an actor, e.g.:

• Has his acting work been generally well received by critics?
• Are there any hallmarks to his acting style? Is he known for playing certain types of characters?
• The fact that he's sometimes acted in his own films

I completely agree about the acting comments. Those were all added in after my initial GA nomination, and I went back and forth with the editor who added these at that time. I just went through and trimmed the acting notes and put them together. You suggested its own subsection, but I don't even think there's enough to make that necessary. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

FYI, I also removed a few mentions of minor acting roles from later sections (2000s and 2010s). I still like the idea of having a dedicated acting section, but I don't think it's a requirement for GA. (Unlike FA which requires "comprehensive coverage", GA only requires "broad coverage"). But just for fun, I might take a stab at adding an acting section at some point later. Colin M (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Awkward essay-like prose in § Influences and style of filmmaking

I found almost all the writing in this article to be tremendously clear and concise. The only exception are a few places in the § Influences and style of filmmaking that use some overly florid language that obscure the idea being expressed:

• Tarantino often manipulates the use of commodities in order to propel plot development or to present an intriguing juxtaposition that ultimately enhances his notorious combination of humor and violence, equating a branded genre with branded consumption. He often pairs bizarre props with an equally bizarre scene, in which the prop itself develops into something of higher substance.
• Tarantino often uses graphic violence that has proven seductive to audiences, and he has been harshly criticized for his use of gore and blood in an entrancing yet simultaneously repulsive way. His films have been staunchly criticized and scorned for their use of violence, blood and action as a "color" within cinema, and rebuked for allegedly using human suffering as a punchline.
• He often seeks to harness, manipulate and ultimately imitate the aesthetic elements and conventions typically used in the cartoon medium. More specifically, he often attempts to meld comic strip formulas and aesthetics within a live action film sequence, in some cases by the literal use of cartoon or anime images. Tarantino's cinematic ambition to marry artistic expression via live action and cartoonism is yet another example of his ability to morph genres and conventions to produce a new and authentic style of his own.

Also, all of these seem to be cited to niche academic papers (with single-digit citations). If you think there's a valuable kernel of information in any of these, I would try to rewrite them in plain English and find better sources. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed this as well and found more sources for some of the analysis. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)}

Looking good. I just did a pass over this section as well and made some trims and wording changes. Even now, I think this is probably the section with the most potential for improvement. The prose is still awkward in places, the flow from topic to topic is a bit jerky, and I think there are lots of topics that could be added or elaborated on. But at this point, I don't think there's anything in the section that would block GA status. Colin M (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements needing citations

According to WP:GACR, citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".

The following statistics need citations:

• The film has grossed over $200 million and was met with critical acclaim.
• In 2004, he brought the Chinese martial arts film Hero to U.S. shores. It ended up having a No. 1 opening at the box office and making $53.5 million. In 2006, another "Quentin Tarantino presents" production, Hostel, opened at No. 1 at the box office with a $20.1 million opening weekend, good for 8th all time in January.

This quote needs to be sourced: By 1997, Miramax had shut down the company due to "lack of interest" in the pictures released.

I think there's also a sourcing issue with this:

The film engendered enmity, and the publication of a "tell all" book titled Killer Instinct by Jane Hamsher—who, with Don Murphy, had an original option on the screenplay and produced the film—led to Tarantino physically assaulting Murphy in the AGO restaurant in West Hollywood, California in October 1997. Murphy subsequently filed a $5M lawsuit against Tarantino, which was eventually settled out of court.

There's one reference given for all this. That link establishes the fact that a $5M lawsuit was filed, but it does not establish:

• The fact that the assault actually occurred. (Are there news stories that establish this as fact? Was there a police report? Did QT admit to it? If no, should probably be described as an alleged assault.)
• The fact that the lawsuit was settled out of court

Colin M (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes

Hi Colin M, I believe I've addressed most or all of the issues you've presented. Most I've made changes to, though a few comments above on sections where I either didn't fully agree, or wasn't quite clear on. I'd very much appreciate another look over, when you can. Thanks so much for taking this on. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Broccoli and Coffee: I added a review template to the top of the page with some remaining blockers for GA. It's mostly pretty minor stuff - I think we're really close! Colin M (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Colin M: Great, thank you! I'm going away for the weekend, but I'll get back to this on Monday. Thanks again. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 20:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin - I've addressed the issues raised on the review template, including further sources where requested, some additional copyedits, and various clean up. Let me know if you think I've missed anything not discussed. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Changes look great. GA it is! Congrats. Colin M (talk) 17:17, 12 March 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#Uma_Thurman's_car_accident is a notable controversy as related to the article's subject? It is already covered over at Kill_Bill:_Volume_1#Production 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: [1] --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)

@Viriditas: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.).

<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.tarantino/c/AQEV8SCfDFE>

<https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-11-17-9711170084-story.html>

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 sentences 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)

@Nemov: 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)

@Pincrete: 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)

@Jtbobwaysf: 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 Cessaune 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

   background highlights "tropes"

Film Description
	RD	PF	JB	KB1	KB2	DP	IB	DU	H8	OUaTiH
stylized violence	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
extended dialogue/profanity	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
dark humor	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
non-linear storylines	Y	Y		Y	Y				Y
cameos	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y	Y	Y	Y
ensemble cast	Y	Y	Y				Y	Y	Y	Y
pop culture refs	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y		Y
music 60s and 70s	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
fictional brands	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
feet		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y			Y

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

 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)

 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[2] @Rvert to find consensus for the lead change. Rvert made the change anyway bizarrly citing "TALK." I rolled back the change[3] 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)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

X=As the page is. Y=Add "author" to the short description and main description. 82.21.83.129 (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: he is mainly known as a film-maker. M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

You need to add that he likes feet unironically. This is a travesty that this information is not available here. 24.29.243.127 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 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. Jamedeus (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)