@[deleted], I agree with absolutely everything in there, except that for me Tarantino does a mediocre-at-best job of using said techniques/styles to deliver a point/narrative that I don't personally care for. I have absolutely nothing wrong with his being inspired, and drawing from that inspiration. My problem is only that is bothers me how he uses his inspiration, not that he uses it (and is admirably open about it).
For instance, my girlfriend is also a filmmaker, and the vast majority of everything that she makes is done with found footage put through analog processing techniques (optical printing and the like). I love her work, and not for one instant does it feel like she's "stealing" anything. That's purely because subjectively, I am on board with how and why she's using that footage or idea. When you don't like the use of it, it feels more like a rip off.
I always tell my students that if everyone made a film like it was the first film ever made, every single motion picture out there would be tripod shot of a train pulling into a station (ala Lumiere bros. c. 1895). The language does indeed have to build off of previous developments in order to become something new. I guess I just find Tarantino's language already outdated, as my version of "new" is certainly extreme and, very often, no fun to watch.
Fundamentally, I think we agree in principle, and it's simply subjective differences that lead to our respective like and dislike for Quentin Tarantino.
On a related note, if you've never read "Godard on Godard", you should certainly pick it up. He unabashedly reveals, sometimes down to the exact shot, what ideas he lifted for his films from other directors (i.e. Howard Hawkes). It's both amusing and a great example of how atavistic 'form' in art-making really is (and now necessary it is to make any actual progress!).
