Quentin Tarantino says the current Hollywood era is tied for the worst in history
On The Video Archives Podcast, Quentin Tarantino names his least favorite eras in film
Aux News Quentin Tarantino
Look, it’s no surprise that Quentin Tarantino is not a fan of the current state of the movie biz. He is among a group of cinema auteurs that are vocally anti-Marvel, and in fact has been highly critical of Disney’s monopoly on the movies as a whole. For Tarantino to say that we’re in one of the “worst” eras in Hollywood history is not breaking news, but perhaps you’ll be interested to see what other eras rank alongside it.
The filmmaker reveals his answer on a recent episode of The Video Archives Podcast. “Even though the ‘80s was the time that I probably saw more movies in my life than ever—at least as far as going out to the movies was concerned—I do feel that ‘80s cinema is, along with the ‘50s, the worst era in Hollywood history,” he shares. “Matched only by now, matched only by the current era!”
Yes, Tarantino famously “can’t wait for the day” that superhero movies loosen their “chokehold” on the industry, but there is always a bright side. “The good thing about being in a bad era of Hollywood cinema is, the ones that don’t conform, the ones that stand out from the pack,” he says on the podcast (in reference to the film Star 80).
So which films stand out from the pack today? Tarantino was recently effusive in his praise for two major releases: “I fucking love Top Gun: Maverick. I thought it was fantastic. I saw it at the theaters,” he said on the ReelBlend podcast. “That and [Steven] Spielberg’s West Side Story both provided a true cinematic spectacle, the kind that I’d almost thought that I wasn’t going to see anymore. It was fantastic.” So cinema isn’t dead after all, even in the blockbuster arena. Perhaps there’s still hope!
290 Comments
Kinda weird that his two top picks that he loved are a legacy sequel to a big blockbuster propoganda action film, and yet another remake of a well-trod musical.
Those aren’t his two top picks. Those are just two movies he recently said he liked, in separate interviews, completely unrelated to this podcast. The author is trying to draw a connection here and doing a lot of editorial hypothesizing.
I can understand him ranking the present decade and the 80s low, but I’m surprised he isn’t a bigger fan of the 50s. I know we tend to remember the pop culture of previous decades far more for their stand-outs than the run-of-the-mill stuff, but as a film maker who prefers tightly written scripts over spectacle, I’m really surprised Tarrantino doesn’t rank the 50s higher. True, this was the era of cinemascope, but it was also an era of a lot of angst-filled and morally ambiguous black and white dramas. Even the westerns from this era regularly featured moral dilemmas that went way beyond the usual cowboy and indian stereotypes.
I found this to be an interesting take as well. There are some stone-cold classics that I personally found to be overrated (despite a terrific performance by Gloria Swanson, I could do without Sunset Boulevard), but Dial M For Murder, Shane, On the Waterfront, 12 Angry Men? As you said, the darker, more ethically shaky films of this era–crime, noir, and otherwise–seems to fit firmly in his wheelhouse and his influences.
I think the emphasis should be put on how we only remember the good movies; Criterion Channel has had some 50s-centric collections, and for every thoughtful, morally-ambiguous drama there’s like seven technicolor kitchen-sink melodramas.
I guess I can rank the 80s low because I have living memory of a lot of the garbage from that decade, whereas I’ve only seen a carefully selected sample from the 50s.
I’m actually quite amazed both QT and the comments (generally, so far) are so willing to admit the 80s weren’t all that. I have mixed feelings about the current era (the business itself is imploding, releases are massively fucked up, and superhero movies are dominating the cineplexes; but there are also some truly great movies out), but it’s also not an either/or; the 80s may have had some true gems but they weren’t the high water mark of cinema just because at one point you could theater-hop and see The Thing, ET, Star Trek 2, and Conan the Barbarian in a single afternoon.
technicolor kitchen-sink melodramas.
You’re mixing idioms here – kitchen sink refers to a British realist movement.
Also, the 1950s produced some of the damn finest melodramas ever made, thanks in large part to Douglas Sirk.
Right – which is why “I don’t like things compared to the way they used to be” is bullshit – because you only remember the cream of the crop. 90% of all art of every form from every era is pretty much crap. It’s just that the further you get away from said era, the hazier your memory of the crap becomes and the better it looks.Also, it bears noting that one eras “crap” is what inspires the next generation’s auteurs. Scorcese – gangster films; Tarrantino – Grindhouse.
“90% of all art of every form from every era is pretty much crap”Actually, if the internet has taught me anything (and it hasn’t), literally everything is crap according to somebody. Which is why you should never enthusiastically like anything. Because you’re probably stupid and wrong.
Yeah but those dramas are real gems. Just doing a quick browse of the 50s Best Picture winners/nominees there’s: All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard, A Streetcar Named Desire, High Noon, The Quiet Man, From Here to Eternity, Roman Holiday, and so many more. Hell I’m even a fan of some of the big technicolor extravaganzas like An American in Paris and The King and I!
As I said, there were a lot of good movies. Just more bad ones. Which we don’t remember. Because they’re bad.
That’s every decade. I’m sure that Tarantino is similarly remembering the good movies of the ‘70s, conveniently forgetting the dross.
I’ve yet to hear the episode to know how he elaborates, but the 70s were a great time in Hollywood as younger auteurs snuck into the studio system and the influences of international cinema (namely the French New Wave); you can make some argument about what was happening artistically and commercially without just drawing a “good movie” column and a “bad movie” column and counting up which is longer.
TBH, I think the entire conversation is stupid. There is no greatest decade for movies. There are good movies and bad ones. There are ones that appeal to you and ones that appeal to me. Unless you can provide some hard numbers to support your claim, it’s all subjective. It’s all just lists of the movies we remember and value.I don’t dispute what you say about the ‘70s, I just don’t think that intrinsically makes it “better.” There was some interesting stuff going on there…and lots of dumb stuff going on somewhere else. Ironically, “Star Wars”—the grandfather of all of these media franchises that cineastes love to dunk on—was itself a product of that ‘70s auteur movement. I think one could argue that the current era is a terrible one for movies IN THEATERS. The pandemic and the streaming services have upended the table. There are tons of movies, but we have no shared canon.
I’d love for you to bring this argument up in the context of art/music/literature history/criticism.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’m not interested in “criticism” for its own sake, or—more to the point—for the sake of a batch of professed experts high-fiving each other over their shared love of movies that are somehow both obscure and vitally important.My point is that whatever was going on in the ‘70s in terms of young auteurs influenced by the French New Wave and I’m already falling asleep, that trend represents a tiny percentage of the output. Which goes back to the earlier argument: we remember the good stuff.
My point is it’s rather facile to ignore the fields of art/media criticism/academia/connoisseurship by boiling them down to “there’s only good stuff and bad stuff.” Of course it’s subjective, but that doesn’t mean discussing context and highs and lows is some foolish, self-serving back-pat fest. And especially when looking at film, a relatively young artform whose evolution in technology and technique can be measured over the last century-plus. Art moves in cycles and movements that reflect its contemporary context, and that’s interesting to discuss.People like to talk about this stuff, from the professed experts to the casual fan; that’s what many people do when they like things. And especially as it’s art, it’s purely subjective and lends itself to superlative. It’s fine that you don’t want to engage in those sorts of conversations about movies. Though weird that you continue doing so here.
Ooo, facile. Been a while since I’ve been called that!It’s not that I don’t engage in those sort of discussions, it’s just that I’m having them about specific genres (sci-fi and horror) that interest me. I’m not equipped to discuss the French New Wave (getting sleepy again), and not going to spend the time to become so when I am devoting my screen watching to catching up on (for example) the Hammer Studios output.Even within that narrow focus, I wouldn’t deign to declare an entire decade as more worthy than another. And that’s my initial objection to this whole stupid conversation: stating that an entire decade is somehow better than another based solely on a relatively small number of films that meet one’s personal criteria of what’s interesting. If you want to say “the films made by young auteurs influenced by the French New Wave (snore) were notably groundbreaking,” I’m cool with that. I can’t argue it one way or the other, but it’s a defensible position. It’s when someone declares that the “hit rate” (something that’s presumably quantifiable) was higher in a certain decade (again, what are we basing this upon?) that I have issues.I suppose that it is facile to boil it down to “every decade has good movies and bad ones,” but the point is that every decade has films that are interesting and groundbreaking *by the conventions of that time*. There weren’t many opportunities for young turks to upend the studio system in the ‘50s, but people still managed to make good films.And again, it comes down to what interests you. This may be a lousy time for QT, but it’s a great one for horror fans.
Let me provide a specific example: 1982. That’s part of the decade QT ranked “the worst era in Hollywood history,” but if you’re an older sci-fi fan, 1982 is the watershed year that gave us “E.T.,” “Blade Runner,” “Tron,” “The Thing,” “The Road Warrior” and “The Wrath of Khan.”
FYI, IMDB lists 33,730 feature films released between 1970 and 1979. Not that IMDB is authoritative and infallible, but even if this number is off by 10 thousand titles, the stone-cold classics are going to be an eensy, teensy fraction of the total output of the ‘70s film industry.
“And that’s my initial objection to this whole stupid conversation: stating that an entire [year] is somehow better than another based solely on a relatively small number of films that meet one’s personal criteria of what’s interesting”
I suppose that you think that’s some kind of “gotcha,” when in fact it’s the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing that 1982 was “better,” just using it as an example of a stretch of time that’s vital to one particular subset of film fans, yet (presumably) insignificant to others. (Though if you’re a Stallone fan, 1982 is the year of both “Rocky III” and “First Blood.”)The funny thing is that this conversation started with me supporting your point: “I think the emphasis should be put on how we only remember the good movies…” I agreed, I just thought it should be expanded to “the movies that we find significant.”I am done here.
Not so much a gotcha as pointing out how wildly all over the place you’ve been with your opinions.
The 80s were the best decade for horror movies.
I wouldn’t disagree. The 2010s were pretty amazing, though.
Eh. The hit rate was a lot higher since folks were taking more chances then as opposed to the 60s or 80s
I would need to see some numbers before accepting as a given that the “hit rate” (by what criteria?) was higher in the ‘70s. I lived through the ‘70s, and for every risky studio movie you can remember, I guarantee there are ten that are forgettable garbage.
Survivor bias thinking.
…are “technicolor kitchen-sink melodramas” bad? That’s basically Douglas Sirk films in the ‘50s and those movies rule.
Sirk rules but he wasn’t the only person making that kinda movie. Very much the exception that proves the rule.
Great fucking film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Wave_(1954_film)
Perhaps he thinks the problem with the 50s was the attempt to compete with TV via gimmicks like 3D.
Can’t speak for QT, but maybe he means the mid to late 50s through the mid 60s? That era when Old Hollywood was dying and they kept cranking out bloated historical epics and hokey musicals to try and keep audiences coming out instead of staying home and watching Ed Sullivan or whatever.
I wonder if his dislike of the 50s is from a lack of variety. Part of what he doesn’t like about “now” is not that they’re popular, but that there are SO MANY superhero movies.
I’d be surprised if he didn’t feel the same way about the 50s.
A not-at-all inclusive list of ‘50s films I’d consider classics:Sunset BoulevardThe Thing from Another WorldAce in the HoleThe Day the Earth Stood StillSingin’ in the RainHigh NoonWar of the WorldsRear WindowNight of the HunterInvasion of the Body SnatchersForbidden PlanetThe Incredible Shrinking ManA Face in the CrowdWitness for the Prosecution VertigoThe 7th Voyage of SinbadSleeping BeautyNorth by NorthwestYeah, my list tends toward genre fare, because that’s what I’m most familiar with. That said, no one can convince me that the ‘50s were a bad time for movies.
Is it possible that the 50’s were classic-heavy with the majority of everything else being trash, thus seeing the decade as a whole as trash due to so many clunkers amidst the bright spots you listed?
I’m surprised he isn’t a bigger fan of the 50s.I’m not surprised. Reason being, he talks utter shit a lot of the time. Oh he definitely knows a lot about the business of filmmaking and more than I ever will, but he still talks a lot of shit.
Dammit. I hate agreeing with Tarantino. I find the guy to be insufferable. But in this case (regarding superhero movies and allowing Disney to buy up literally all of the cultural cachet) he’s not wrong at all.
“I’m not allowed to sniff my actresses feet anymore and im sad”
80’s hadEmpireCaddyshackBack to the FutureGooniesLost BoysFright NightHalloween 4 ;)Yeah the 80’s wasn’t a great time for the movies, while the 70’s maybe the best decade for movies ever. What he said about their only be 6 perfect movies ever, is something I almost agree with him about. Because Texas Chainsaw Masscare, Exorcist, Jaws and Back to the Future are all perfect movies to me as well.
You get a star for bringing up Halloween 4.
Thank you! Funny enough I cut School in 88 to go see that as Michael Myers wasn’t in a movie since 1981. I was gonna say Friday the 13th part 8 to really show how bad the 80’s was!
They made 4 of them fucking things?
The 80s had:Predator (hey Werdup, what’s up?)RobocopAliensTotal Recall creeps in thereThe ThingStar Trek 2I have to put an etc in there now or we’ll be here all day.
The 80s had Ghostbusters.
And we’re still suffering for it to this day.
You’re suffering, everyone else is happy about it.
Another fucking money machine!
I think this is sort of illustrative, Ghostbusters was a movie that would actually be nigh-impossible to make today not because of political correctness or whatever but simply because, it was an expensive A-level blockbuster kinda movie that wasn’t tied to any existing IP. Like it was sort of inspired by old 40s movies and there was that thing with the unrelated live action “Ghost Busters” series in the 70s but it wasn’t anything anyone recognized, it was being sold entirely on the star power and was a pretty big risk for Columbia. ($30 million was a lot of money back then.)And indeed in the “early” blockbuster era you do see some weird risks like this- because Star Wars had also been technically original (if obviously based on Flash Gordon and Kurosawa and so on), some of the studios tried original IP like The Dark Crystal or Krull or The Last Starfighter (and mostly failed miserably which is why that stopped.) The other big difference is the mid budget, of course- something like Robocop was a B movie, it wasn’t expected to do that great until Orion started testing it. Even ET was a mid level project and it wasn’t until Universal started preview screenings that they realized they had something special on their hands. You see fewer surprises like that.
I dunno, I think something like Knives Out shows that if you get the right kind of star power together with a script that’s actually good, you can have these kind of big budget breakout hits. It’s not doing Marvel movie business, but it was a $40 million dollar movie that made back 8x its budget, which is the exact sort of film that people often complain is lacking these days.The other thing is that something like The Fast & The Furious franchise was like four movies deep before Marvel even got off the ground. That also shows that you can build big budget franchises from scratch if you start from a minor success, in this case another $40 million dollar film that made 8x its budget back. I think the real problem is that we’re basically a decade and a half into studios failing to learn from what was happening with these two franchises. WB has basically flailed about with their DC properties and the quality is so uneven that no one even knows what they’re getting with a DC movie. The Dark Universe has had a half-dozen starts and stops and never really gotten off the ground. In both cases there’s a refusal to commit to a minor success; in both cases you repeatedly have studios making, essentially, Thor 1 and expecting Avengers-level results.In fact, I’d argue we see a lot of spiritual successors to Robocop lately – that is, a studio attempting to franchise a surprisingly successful mid-budget film with rapidly diminishing returns until it vanishes.
True, Knives Out was sort of a ray of hope (Hustlers too though that’s technically based on a magazine article, nobody was seeing it because of that.)
I implied I didn’t want to be here all day! If I didn’t think of a film within 15 seconds it got folded into the etc!
The Thing is a truly great movies. The rest are fun like the one’s I named at the end. Just fun movies, not mind blowing great movies. I don’t even like QT that much but I get his point on the 80’s not being good.
Total Recall was in 1990 (close enough I suppose)
Total Recall came out in 1990.
Here’s a very (very) brief list of great 80s movies. There are too many to list. Tarantino is ‘playing dumb’:
Stranger
Than Paradise
Blood
Simple
Sex
Lies and Videotape
Letter
To Brezhnev
Spike
Lee joints
The
Coen Brothers films
Eating
Raoul
After
Hours
Withnail
and I
This
is Spinal Tap
Blue
Velvet
Bunch
of Nick Cage movies
Silkwood
Sophie’s
Choice
Working
GirlErin
Brokovich
…Was there an earlier Erin Brokovich movie I’m not aware of (like, 20 years earlier?)
Most of those are independent films, so I think Tarantino’s point still stands about the quality of Hollywood during the decade. Also, Erin Brockovich is from 2000…
I didn’t include the blockbusters. I shouldn’t have to list those.
“I didn’t include the blockbusters.”
Why would you? Do you equate box office with quality?
After Hours alone disputes his dumb take.
Yeah I simply don’t get the claim that 80s cinema was a worst era in any way. It was a letdown after the groundbreaking 70s perhaps but we could sit here making long lists all day and not cover all the great movies from that decade.
“Tarantino is ‘playing dumb’”
No, he’s not. He didn’t say there were no good movies, dumbfuck.
Also, if you’re going to be a cunt, don’t be TWO DECADES OFF with Erin Brockovich.
Erin Brockovich is NOT an 80’s movie…
But otherwise yeah I agree, there were some good films from the 80’s.
Not sure that you didn’t just prove Tarantino’s point.
It’s true, perhaps, that the films of the 1980’s didn’t have the depth and seriousness of great decades like the 1940s and 1970s. The 80’s specialty was well-crafted action, sci-fi, horror, and comedy flicks. I’d say the 1980s is superior to any decade that followed. I think Tarantino is being disingenuous and slags the films of the 80s only to give the impression he’s willing to be equally critical of the decade he grew up in.
Cutter’s Way
The Road Warrior
The Fly (1986)
Raiders of the Lost Ark
48 Hours
The Terminator
T2
Aliens
Running on Empty
Clean and Sober
Pale Rider
Southern Comfort
The Long Riders
The Last Emperor
The Vanishing
Fitzcarraldo
Big Trouble in Little China
Conan the Barbarian
Predator
Superman II
Witness
Reanimator
The Hidden
Barfly
Lost in America
Blade Runner
National Lampoon’s Vacation
Fletch
Die Hard
Blow Out
Drugstore Cowboy
Excalibur
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket
Hoosiers
Mask
Melvin and Howard
Mississippi Burning
Once Upon a Time in America
Videodrome
Platoon
Used Cars
Thief
The Untouchables
The King of Comedy
The Stuntman
Raging Bull
The Dogs of War
Scarface
Shoot the Moon
Risky Business
Robocop
While it’s easy to name some perfect movies from any era, the 80s had Krull, a turd that’ll ruin any size punchbowl.
God I forgot about Krull!
I thought Krull was a great example of a “good bad movie”. As in a movie that is objectively bad but enjoyable to watch. Just the whole idea of mixing magic with laser pistols is just so amusing. They couldn’t decide if they wanted to do LOTR or Star Wars so they did both!
krull is also what happens when you give a very pulpy story to an incredibly talented bunch of people (experienced classic theatre actors, seasoned director, etc) About the “80s movies weren’t that bad” discourse let me highlight that this was not only the era of the consolidation of indie respectable cinema, but that the 80s neo noirs are very underrated and sought after in general.
I unironically love Krull! Back to Night Court with you!
What were his 6 perfect movies? I can’t see it on Google. I would say The Shining was perfect.
Sorry it was 7 and he said in on Kimmel.Texas Chainsaw MasscareJawsExorcistBack to the FuturealsoAnnie HallYoung Frankenstein andThe Wild Bunch
Interesting list…
Yeah, I’m not the biggest Annie Hall fan but I know so many people a little older and younger than me love it.
Yeah i wondered that too as the 80s had so many cult, amazing films, more than i can remember from any other era. I think he said 80s, however, as it was flooded with cheap straight to vhs movies as the home vhs era just hit
Halloween 4 was god awful garbage trash for stupid people who could barely remember 5 minutes ago let alone 1981.Had sharpshooter, Laurie Strode who had never fired a gun before, actually managed to shoot him directly, perfectly in the eyeholes of a halloween mask not only would his eyes have been gone. But he would have also dropped dead instantly on the spot when 2 bullets went through his brain, there are no magical bullets that realize they just took out eyeballs and stop motion from there…..Even IF we wanted to pretend he somehow survived that the infections from the 100% 3rd+ degree burns to 100% of his body would have killed him
Given that I loathe him as a director, an “actor,” and a writer, I can now hold him in contempt as a film critic. And he still has one of the most punchable faces in the world.
Yes. Who cares what Tarantino watched? We don’t get articles about what every relevant and important director last watched, do we?
It’s like he scored an EGOT of shittiness.
I don’t know how you look but your lack of taste already makes you more punchable.
He’s just pissed white guys can’t say the N-word and get away with it anymore
I don’t think that’s actually the defining feature of these eras of cinema.
White guys saying the n word in cinema was a relatively brief era. From like 1994 to… 1994.
He, of all people, actually can as long as Sam L Jackson lets him.
I feel like all these old men should form a club where they can find the best clouds to yell at, go the fuck over there and keep their dumb opinions to themselves.
I feel like you snarky asshole commenters should do the same…
That’s not snark, friend, that’s straight up contempt for people who say shit like that. This is a guy who decries the hold super movies have on the industry yet says he loves a military fantasy superhero movie. It’s ‘back in my day’ bullshit, which is always intellectual laziness.
Or he just doesn’t like the pervasive nature a handful of IPs have on the industry. It’s an opinion about movies dude. Why do you have to turn it into a personal judgement?Let me guess, you’re still pissed he used the N word and is obsessed with feet.
You are talking to a boring Marvel superfan asshole. He’s only mad at Tarantino and Scorsese because he knows they are 100% right about his shitty baby brained movies.
I’m not sure why you feel like it’s necessary to insult me in defense of guys who will never give 2 shits about you. Why are you so invested in this discussion that you think it’s ok to call me an asshole and say I like shitty baby brained movies? Did I insult you somehow? Are you a Tarantino or Scorsese sock puppet? Seriously, what makes you think what you’re typing is in any way appropriate or good? I’m not out here calling you names, why do you think it’s ok for you to call me shit like that?
Or maybe because QT turns around and praises crap like TG2
Internet Poster Metal Fingers has some anger issues, apparently.
Is there any one of your types who isn’t condescending and pretentious, especially in a very unearned way?
“Or he just doesn’t like the pervasive nature a handful of IPs have on the industry”Yeah that’s not what he said at all though.
‘Back in my day’ bullshit is always intellectual laziness.“Let me guess, you’re still pissed he used the N word and is obsessed with feet.”Let me guess, you’re making entirely unfounded assumptions based on what you imagine people are saying instead of what they’re actually saying. Checks notes: Yep, I never said anything about his foot fetish or use of the n word, nor do I give a single shit about either of those things.
That’s exactly what he said, if you bothered to listen instead of reading clickbait Kinja. You’re dumb.
Your first sentence was pretty reasonable, then you end with an insult. I may be dumb but you are very badly socialized.
PS: An apology for assuming that I have something against him because of his foot fetish would be nice.
You’re making personal judgments about a human being because they don’t like the movies you like. Sorry. I reserve my respect for people who show it to others.
I’m making personal judgements about public human beings because they very publicly espouse an opinion that is, without fail, bullshit. Even if I didn’t like Marvel movies I would say that ‘back in my day’ bullshit is always regressive bullshit and the older I get the more people spewing it prove that.
I guess since any disrespect automatically requires an insult and you don’t respect me, I’ll speak the language you understand: You’re dumb.
Thank you.. I take great pride in my ignorance.
You’d have a point if QT hadn’t said he loved a blockbuster sequel and a remake as his top films of recent.
I still have a point. You’re a fuckwit.
Oh, wait, you’re just a fashy, racist, transphobic piece of waste
go fuck yourself
no U
Someday, you’ll be the an hero we need you to be.
I’m so glad you guys are miserable and I hope it continues.
Shut up stupid. Tarantino knows movies. You don’t know shit. That’s why you like stupid movies made for babies.
So since I like Tarantino’s movies that means he makes stupid movies for babies. Interesting take by Internet Poster Metal Fingers.
“That’s not snark, friend, that’s straight up contempt for people who say shit like that.”
It was a podcast, you fucking knob. He was talking about his favourite and least favourite decades of film.
The only person deserving of contempt is the pathetic loser who is taking Tarantino’s opinion personally to the point of feeling contempt for him.
Get a fucking grip on yourself.
I’m sorry. Hugs.
Yeah, he’s kind of negating his whole argument with that one…
Ooooh… You are getting dragged.
Oooohhhh, you’re really into dragging me. I hope you’re having fun!
You missed the mark here pretty widely. He criticized his “own day”. He is critical of the ‘50s. Dude. Stop.
He was born in 1963, ‘back in his day’ is the ‘70s.
Yeah, because the most incisive critical opinions that one arrives at on all manner of worldly topics in life, usually come into sharp focus when you’re 7. Ugh. The best way to get out of a hole, is to stop digging. You’re insufferable.Do you have to tie a steak around your neck to get your own dog to show interest in you?
He specifically called 80s movies, which would be back in his day, a terrible era in movies. So disagree with him all you want, but he’s not complaining from a back in my day position.
He was born in 1963, ‘back in his day’ is the ‘70s.
He says 80s was the peak of his movie watching, and he graduated high school in the 80s. I don’t see how you’d figure 80s wasn’t back in his day.
The ‘80s weren’t any more terrible than the ‘90s.
You seem to have lost the thread on what this discussion was about
They did. You’re posting on it right now.
We did, its awesome! Lots of free beer and plenty of clouds to yell at
Free beer?!? Alrighty then I’m doing a 360 on my opinion. #WakandaForeverOscarsPOTY
So, they should just not answer certain questions interviewers are asking them because someone on the internet might not like their opinion?
If their opinion is ‘modern things are shitty, things were better when I was younger!’ then yes, they should keep it to themselves, because that’s always bullshit. ‘No comment’ is a perfectly valid answer.
So… pop culture only ever gets better?
Pop culture is more of a constant, it’s the least common denominator .
The problem is not “pop culture exists” the problem is it’s increasingly hard to get the studios to back ANYTHING that’s not existing IP in a tested franchise. The mid-budget production in particular is what’s endangered- very low budget stuff can get made by independent funding but there is a level where you don’t necessarily need 100 exploding spaceships but you do need a large cast and/or good period detail and/or a lot of sets and locations, etc. Like Everything Everywhere All at Once is a great movie but there is a reason it takes place mostly at the tax office and the laundromat. There are obviously some bright spots, and I think specifically horror is now a sort of bastion of original ideas, because most of those can be made for cheap and you don’t need familiar IP to sell it, just a premise. And of course someone on the level of Tarantino or Scorcese can get funding, they still have their names to sell it. But it’s fair to say now that studios are close to the most conservative they’ve ever been, there’s very little incentive to take risks.
I’ve been hearing that argument since the ‘90s.
And it’s gotten worse. In the 90s you still had a healthy mid range, The Matrix was a sort of upper-mid production at $63 million, indie distribution was pretty healthy, and even some top-level blockbusters were technically new stories. Independence Day may have been inspired by every 50s alien invasion movie ever but it wasn’t a familiar IP. Not to mention, no one studio had the weird hegemonic influence that Disney does now. You look at the top grossers for each year in the 90s and it’s constantly switching around, from Universal with Jurassic Park to Paramount with Forrest Gump to Warner Bros. with Batman Forever, etc. Field was more open. Of course in the 90s I recall it being a new and scandalous thing that studios were now pressing to take more than 50% of opening weekend ticket prices, now theaters are lucky to get any money from that period outside of concessions.
Pop culture lol. Dweeb.
Fuck off
“If their opinion is ‘modern things are shitty, things were better when I was younger!’ ”I don’t think he’s written off the liklihood that things will improve. I think he just feels like we’re in an especially fallow era at the moment. But everything is cyclical, you know?
“If their opinion is ‘modern things are shitty, things were better when I was younger!’”
That’s NOT his opinion, moron.He only brought “modern things are shitty” to compare them to the shitty decade that ended 30 years ago, you absolute fucking idiot.
You get that he’s saying the 90s and 00s were better than the 80s, right? And that the 90s and 00s are MORE MODERN than the 80s?
Get some perspective, jackass.
Maybe you should buck up and just scroll by it, and retreat to your safe space. You sound about 12.
Seems like you’re the one who was triggered by my comment.Yes, my saying he can always say ‘No comment’ is something a 12 year old would say, good job.
There are those that actually DO things in their life…and then there’s Murry. Unless jerking-off in your mom’s basement counts as doing something, in which case I’m sure Murry is quite prolific.Fuck all the way off, Murry, you insignificant little POS.
He actually said that things are as bad as when he was younger. You really don’t know what’s going on at all
Lol so you completely ignore the part where he says cinema in the 50’s and 80’s was just as bad? He is literally criticizing his own era to a great extent. You seem be suffering from a case of selective reading. The audacity to think that your opinion is more valid than a man who is literally a student of cinema and who is largley responsible for some of the best examples of great cinema we have had for more than two decades, is astonishing.
shut the fuck up. you’re screaming into the void as much as anyone, and you’ve got your head up your own ass with the best of em.
Huh, that’s interesting. Can you elaborate why you think my head is that far up my ass? How about explaining why I should listen to someone who starts out their post by telling me to ‘shut the fuck up’? Do you think it would be appropriate to do that kind of thing in real life? If not, why do you think it is appropriate to do it online?
You’re an annoying asshole who spends all day spewing shit online. I don’t have any more time to waste on you. But I’m sure you have plenty more time to waste. Go ahead. You reply to every slight. Get a life.
“You reply to every slight.”I’d love for you to quote the slight in the post you’re replying to, guy who called me, and I quote, ‘an annoying asshole’.
“Can you elaborate why you think my head is that far up my ass?”
You’re taking offense at the host of a film podcast listing his favourite and least favourite genres.
Explain how you don’t have your head up your ass.
First, shut the fuck up. Second, he literally says he thinks the 80s are just as bad even though that was the era he watched the most films in his late teens / 20s.
He was born in 1963, the films he watched in his late teens and twenties would have mostly been from before the ‘80s.“First, shut the fuck up.”
How about explaining why I should listen to someone who starts out their
post by telling me to ‘shut the fuck up’? Do you think it would be
appropriate to do that kind of thing in real life? If not, why do you
think it is appropriate to do it online?
Because you need to shut the fuck up and I find you annoying.Some math: 63 + 17 = 80. He would’ve been 17 in 1980. Late teens. 80s. He mentioned specifically going to the movies – this means these would’ve been new releases at the time. Maybe because you’re a Marvel fan you’re confused and you think most peoples’ favorite movies are the ones they watched as very young children, but most people develop their palate a little bit later.
“Because you need to shut the fuck up and I find you annoying.”And yet you still continue talking to me, odd.
“Some math: 63 + 17 = 80. He would’ve been 17 in 1980.”Yep, and the vast majority of movies released in 1980 were made in the ‘70s.“Maybe because you’re a Marvel fan you’re confused and you think most
peoples’ favorite movies are the ones they watched as very young
children, but most people develop their palate a little bit later.”Oooh sick burn, good thing you’re a much more cultured person than us plebs who, you apparently believe, only watch Marvel movies.Let’s talk about why you’re so angry about my opinion on QT’s opinion. Like, you really seem to be taking it personally. What’s up with that? Are you seeing someone about the anger management issues that cause you to get all fired up and insult people online over things they say about people you will never meet?
lol @ “the vast majority of movies release in 1980 were made in the 70s.” Do you really believe that this is what people mean when they talk about eras of film? Hard lines between the last year of one decade and the first of the next? You’re this dumb? But for real: a normal person’s favorite movies are not the ones that came out when he or she was a child. You’re stunted.
“But for real: a normal person’s favorite movies are not the ones that came out when he or she was a child. You’re stunted.”What movies, exactly, do you think are my favorite? Do you think that any of the Marvel movies came out during my childhood? Do you think any of them are actually my favorite movies?
Also you’re not addressing your anger management issues. What makes you so angry about someone’s opinion on the internet? I’m really interested in the psychology of someone who thinks like you do, someone who thinks that ‘fuck off I find you annoying’ is an appropriate way of expressing their ideas, it’s fascinating. Like a junior high kid in an adult’s body or something.
God damn you’re boring.
He clearly said that the 80’s was the period where he went to see movies in theaters most often, meaning, this was the era where he saw the most new movies because old movies wouldnt be playing in theaters. Weird that you dont even read the interview before ranting. Triggered by a headline.
Tarantino is probably as fully-steeped a cinephile as there is working today, with an enthusiastic and encyclopedic knowledge of film. So if I’m going to listen to anyone ruminate on the history of movies, it’s going to be him even if half the time he’s just stirring up shit for fun.
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/argument-from-authority
Take a hike.
Take a long walk of a short pier.
Not really. Just a few specialty subjects that your average reader of Video Watchdog or Psychotronic back in the day could easily keep up with.
Yeah but how many of those readers from back in the day are top directors who draw inspiration from such an eclectic array of genres?
Only old men make lists of things ranked from best to worst?
Like, what the fuck does his age have to do with what he’s saying?
Guess what? There are PLENTY of people of all ages who don’t like superhero movies. Also, try to find ANY film historian who will put the 80s at the top of the “best decades for film” list.
Ya! Why on earth should we give any credence to the opinions of people in the movie industry on the state of the movie industry? A better barometer is what some asshole nobody thinks in the comments section of a website most people haven’t even heard of. Those are the complex, nuanced takes I want!
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/argument-from-authority
I’m sure Tarantino was a narcissistic douche as a youngster too. “Old” has nothing to do with it…
Fair
I partially agree but mainly I think people should stop asking them. Like half these “old man doesn’t like Marvel movies” stories are because in some interview or podcast some asshole brings it up, inevitably wanting a soundbite for stuff like this.It’s less “old man yells at cloud” and more “young people keep bothering olds about clouds”
Yeah. Fuck off, kid. Seriously.
No, you fuck off. Seriously.
Except for the fact that QT is right, mainstream Hollywood circa 2022 is a wasteland bereft of talent, innovation and artistic integrity.
Oh woe is us, for there is no talent to be found in Hollywood! All the movies are special effects extravaganzas that the smooth brain audiences lap up unthinkingly!Good thing YOU have good taste, YOU can tell us drooling idiots what we SHOULD like! The crenelations of your brain give you the authority to decide what takes talent, has integrity and holds REAL value!
You admitted to be a drooling idiot.I’m gonna call that progress!And look! Some dummy got a “Word-of-the-Day” app and is trying to force the word “crenelation” into his comment in order to try and cosplay intelligence.Nice try, Jethro.Too bad you didn’t look closer at the spelling of the word you just learned about a minute ago…it’s crenulation, not crenelation, dipshit. How embarrassing…but I’m gonna take a wild guess and assume that you’re quite used to humiliating yourself, right? LOL!
What you lack, that these “old men” simply dont, is perspective. They have a point of reference to compare eras. You do not. I don’t think the “Ok, Boomer” argument is any better than the “Back in my day” argument. Both lack substance. If you can’t tell the difference between an honest, unbiased and nuanced opinion and one that is none of those things, that is more of a “you” problem. I hope that when you grow up, younger people don’t automatically dismiss your opinion on the basis of your age. It’s a sign of an ailing society when the inexperienced youth doesn’t respect the experience of their elders and sadly, our society is heading in that direction. I say this as a 36 year old man so you dont need to be that old to have common sense.
“I say this as a 36 year old man so you dont need to be that old to have common sense.”Get off my lawn, youngin. The ‘perspective’ they have is shitty. Talk to me when you grow up a bit and learn that just because they’ve made movies doesn’t mean their opinion doesn’t stink.“It’s a sign of an ailing society when the inexperienced youth doesn’t respect the experience of their elders and sadly”I’m closer to their age than you are. Just because people are old doesn’t mean their opinions aren’t shitty. The opinions that these old guys have: They’re shitty. Don’t respect the opinions of your elders just because they’re your elders. I took care of an old guy for almost 5 years and he had super shitty opinions, like that Obama shouldn’t be president because he’s black. I guess you would have respected that opinion, just because he was old.
The AV Club then?;-)
I feel like you are content to watch the same shitty movie over and over and over again, just with different actors and different costumes. That is the superhero genre. Oh, and you reacted the way you did because you feel defensive for being one of the braindead zombies that lap this crap up.
“I feel like you are content to watch the same shitty movie over and over
and over again, just with different actors and different costumes”So you think superhero movies are the only movies I watch, eh? Your feelings are wrong.“Oh, and you reacted the way you did because you feel defensive for being one of the braindead zombies that lap this crap up.”And you reacted the way you did because you feel defensive because you know I’m right.
Awwww he’s upset because someone has an opinion other than his own…grow up.
There were so many great films from the 80s (both Indie and ‘Industrial’). The innovations in narrative style and basic production alone are beyond impressive. F this guy and his gargantuan ego. He’s gone from contrarian to troll.
Hey F you for having an opinion about movies you Fing F!!!
i can’t believe he doesn’t have the same opinions as you! how dare! clutch those pearls!
The 80s were kinda transitional is the thing. Studios were thinking more and more of the blockbuster and establishing franchises that they could spin sequels from (arguably because the typical diminishing returns for a series of sequels was being offset by things like home video, this is a complicated element.) There was more thought about “can we merchandise this” because the merchandising for Star Wars had generated so much, movie concepts had to be more easily packaged, and a director’s name didn’t mean as much. The home video market started to eat into the theatrical returns for indie pictures (and just about killed the midnight movie phenomenon), and while the studios were still kinda volatile they sort of consolidated their power by the end, none of the upstarts lasted very long except maybe Tri-Star (which has never been big.)
He might have strengthened his case if Top Gun: Maverick weren’t basically a super-hero film. I mean, not capes and tights, but the superheroics were in full effect.I’ll quote something I posted a while back:In the first 10 minutes of the movie homeboy flys at MACH 10, crashes the damn plane, and saunters into a diner after surviving said crash. He then proceeds to train other sup…ahem, pilots to fly a suicide mission that apparently only he’s capable of flying. Top top it all off, the whole team SURVIVES said suicide mission (clearly they need to redefine the term “suicide mission”) and he gets to ride off into the sunset with Jennifer Connely!Either he was a superhero or the last two hours or so of that movie was a deathbed fever dream.
Hey now, macho military fantasy movies are legitimate cinema because they’re about macho military mans and the women who love them!Superhero movies are kiddy bullshit for manbabies who can’t grow up and live in their mom’s basement! They are not are not, by any definition, cinema!
/s
Not sure about Tarantino, but the reason I am over superhero movies is they are so formulaic. Maverick kind of suffered from the same thing IMHO.
Spoken like a true limp-wristed beta-male.
Maverick may be a superhero in that movie, but I think his issue with current “superhero movies” is more about how they’re made, rather than the subject matter. I don’t think Tarantino is snobbish about subject matter, given the movies he tends to make and like. It’s all about execution for him.
Yeah, that’s incredibly dismaying to hear from him (not that I hold his opinions in that high regard anyway). Top Gun: Maverick is really no better than your average warmed-over Hollywood schlock coming out today.
tbh the bits where they were zooming around in the planes, to me, were more engrossing than any of the last few years of Marvel stuff. I suspect that’s all he’s referring to vis-a-vis spectacle….because, I mean, isn’t the montage of the dogfighting and push-ups about all you want from a big dumb popcorn movie?
I actually found most of the aerial scenes to be pretty inert and uninvolving, not to mention hard to follow spatially. Closeup of actor in cockpit. Closeup of another actor in identical-looking cockpit. Rinse repeat. The climactic mission was exciting, I’ll give you that, but also incredibly stupid.
I can take or leave the climactic mission (is it THAT different than every other third act?) For me, the cockpit shots in the training scene (look at the skin stretching over their skulls from the G’s!) combined with the cinematography made that whole stretch pretty neat.
I think that’s contingent on it being spread across a giant screen (I will never watch this movie again) but again I think that’s sort of Tarantino’s point. (Or maybe it was just that I sprang for an ICEE that day…)
I saw it in IMAX and thought it was so dull. Nonexistent storytelling, dull dialogue, and I found the flight sequences impressive but not actually engrossing. The ending was so predictable that it actually made me angry that it’s what they went with.
“Either he was a superhero or the last two hours or so of that movie was a deathbed fever dream.”
Or you just needed to somehow pretend that any of what you said makes him a superhero.
I saw a doc recently about Australian grind house cinema and of course QT is in it raving about every movie they’re talking about. Let’s just say his taste are peculiar, if not leaning towards straight up shlock. I honestly think his beef with superhero movies is that they’re not bloody enough.
I suspect his love of Top Gun Maverick and hatred of Superhero movies has FAR more to do with the fact that Top Gun Maverick was primarily practical effects and real flight footage and superhero movies are usually almost entirely CGI. There’s a weightlessness to almost all Marvel/DC action setpieces that the rare competently made practical-effects driven films like Top Gun Maverick or Mad Max Fury Road stand in stark contrast to. Not to mention with those primarily CGI movies like the marvel flicks they tend to have all the action scenes come off an assembly line with minimal director involvement. These are things that old school filmmakers and film fans tend to get really upset about. I don’t blame them even if I personally like most of the Marvel movies.
That def tracks with the fact that he hung that stunt woman off the hood of a speeding car for two days for the final sequence in Death Proof.
no, it has to do with sticking to the old Hollywood kind of narration. Guys, don’t try to look for a moral discourse here or anything :Tarantino is focusing on an specific way of storytelling, shooting, lighting, framing, etc. West Side Story has the same “artisan” qualities.
I wonder if it has anything to do with superheroes not dying. Tom Cruise could die (tho he didn’t). The whole movie was about not dying. When Tony Stark gets thrown six blocks into a skyscraper and doesn’t die, the movie is no longer about the human experience.
I saw a doc recently about Australian grind house cinema and of course QT is in it raving about every movie they’re talking about. Let’s just say his taste are peculiar, if not leaning towards straight up shlock. I honestly think his beef with superhero movies is that they’re not bloody enough.The fact that he’s seen Turkey Shoot, let alone heard of it impressed me no end, it’s just a bit of a cult feature even down here.
I can honestly say the only movie mentioned that I had heard of prior to watching was obviously Mad Max/The Road Warrior but if nothing else those movies looked entertaining as hell.
I was glad I didn’t have to have previously seen ten movies to understand Top Gun Maverick, and also glad it didn’t end with a cliffhanger or a scene that promises a sequel, like many blockbusters today.
I’d say it helps to have seen the original Top Gun to understand some of the emotional beats with Maverick and Goose’s son (possibly the relationship with Penny too).
On a similar vein I don’t think folks need to have seen ten previous Marvel films to get Wakanda Forever, just the previous Black Panther movie.
I rewatched Top Gun with my son in preparation to watch the sequel. I hadn’t seen it since 1986. It’s still good for what it was.
True story, I saw Top Gun: Maverick because I paid for access to a camgirl show, not realizing that it was movie night. So I hung around drinking a beer and exchanging PMs with a a fully-clothed camgirl from Texas while she broadcast a Tom Cruise movie. You know what? It wasn’t bad. The original Top Gun is a piece of shit – apart from Tom Skerritt’s mustache, that Giorgio Moroder score, and the aerial footage, it’s all weirdo 80s machismo and a third act that comes out of nowhere. Maverick doesn’t have petulant stalking disguised as romance, the aerial footage is even better, Miles Teller rocks a decent mustache, and Jon Hamm stares out a window and says, “What do I do with you, Maverick?” Without a hint of irony.
It’s more of a star wars on earth film then a marvel film…
1) Going by your logic, Kill Bill is a superhero movie. It’s not.2) You’re not only dead wrong, but you’re missing the point of Quentin’s criticism.
With such a loose generalization, any action movie can be classified as a super hero film.
Hhhhh gangster movies, then cowboy movies, then spy movies, then disaster movies, then fascist action movies, then disaster movies again, now superhero movies…It’s all been shit. But Top Gun and West Side Story make the cut? Go lick some feet and talk in a terrible AAVE accent, Mr Mix Tape Movie
There are genres, and there are IPs. Movies like Unbroken or Mystery Men contain superheroes in them but aren’t vehicles for commercializing existing IPs, which is what most superhero movies are now.
“But Top Gun and West Side Story make the cut? Go lick some feet and talk in a terrible AAVE accent, Mr Mix Tape Movie”
Cry more about *looks up the topic* some guy’s throwaway podcast line?? Seriously? That’s what you’re acting like a whiny little shitty baby about?
Jesus…
Thing is gangster movies and cowboy movies weren’t AAA-level, necessarily- though the latter were at times you saw plenty of B and C level cowboy pictures. Problem with doing that now is people are seeing these films based on the brand, they don’t see movies in that genre outside of the familiar brand. One of the distinguishing features I’d say of the New Hollywood was that there wasn’t really a huge go-to genre in the way that licensed superheroes are now or that musicals and big period epics had been before- disaster movies were sort of a thing but it was mostly Irwin Allen making money on that. The studios didn’t really have any sure fire things, so it made sense to spend smaller amounts of money on movies from directors who had an established audience and who made films that were more personal to them- Nashville only made $20 million in 1976 but it only cost $2 million so it was a good return on investment, and even if it had failed, it’d be a rounding error. There was more room to experiment since nobody really know what was gonna be it- the big hits ranged from Love Story to The Godfather to The Sting to The Exorcist, there’s no common line there that you can easily exploit.
Yea there were dominant genres in each era of film. That doesn’t mean that that average quality of movie hasn’t changed over the years.Superheroes aside, the sheer volume of Netflix drek like Red Notice and The Grey Man means that on average in 2022, you’re much more likely to see a terrible new movie than a decent one. Good stuff is still getting made, but the floor is much, much lower in the 2020’s than in the 70’s, 90’s, and 00’s.
The only reason super talented directors with long histories of making amazing movies hate Marvel movies is because those directors know about film and hate shitty CGI driven dreck. The only reason Marvel fans get so mad at people like Tarantino and Scorsese is because they know in their heart of hearts that those directors are 100% right about the shit movies they watch.
While you’re explaining how other people ‘really’ feel, can you tell me why you think it’s ok to sling insults at me over the opinions of guys who will never, ever talk to you?Do you actually believe that I only watch Marvel movies?
Your schtick is getting old.
To be fair, his “I’m a super grown-up because I hate movies for babies” shtick is at least a lot better than his misogyny, racism, and other assorted bigotries.
You’re really angry that some people like something you don’t like, huh? Maybe try taking a deep breath and thinking about puppies for a bit until you calm down.
Meanwhile those of us who like both kinds of movies and filmmakers want you douchebags to shut the fuck up already.
I love Tarantino’s talky, stagey films as much as the next person, but the cinema of the 70’s, which he idolizes, was on its way to killing the entire industry. People queued round the block to see Jaws because there was no expectation in the theater owners that that many people would actually want to see a movie.
“the cinema of the 70’s, which he idolizes, was on its way to killing the entire industry”That’s a hell of a take. What makes you say that?
Most people didn’t want to see miserable, cynical movies. Thank god for Jaws and Star Wars.
So why did they line up around the block for The Godfather?
Top Gun was super entertaining, but saying it’s not a super hero movie just because it involved uniforms and not costumes is crazy. West Side Story was boring and the very definition of unnecessary.
“Top Gun was super entertaining, but saying it’s not a super hero movie just because it involved uniforms and not costumes is crazy.”
Whereas calling it a superhero movie despite nobody having superpowers or unique costumes or supervillains…is correct?
Counterpoint: West Side Story was a masterclass in filmmaking and the best movie of 2021.
again, you are focusing on some narrative content and probably not the classic storytelling and filmmaking which Tarantino loves
I like that his two choices for great movies from this allegedly shitty era were ones that were sprung from movies that could not be more of the other two eras he found shitty.Top Gun Maverick, a sequel to a movie that is so 80’s it’s wearing a polo shirt with a turned up collar. West Side Story, a remake of a movie that, while made in 1961, is typical of the studio fare being churned out in the 50’s. No real criticism of that, mind you. I just found it interesting.
Those aren’t his two choices for great movies of this era. The author of this piece is taking unrelated pull-quotes from separate interviews and using those as a sort of “answer” to the statement he made in this podcast. A statement which, let’s be honest, is just kind of a flippant throway line at the top of the podcast before he spends over an hour talking about Star 80.
I think they way those movies created grand spectacle with a minimum of CGI is what appealed to the old school director in him. I think the subject matter was secondary.
The 80s had a lot of terrible, insane movies that for some reason got big budgets and marketing pushes (I blame the cocaine), but they also produced some pretty incredible auteur works as well as nearly all of the cornerstones of modern pop culture, which I would imagine a guy like Tarantino would appreciate.
“Even though the ‘80s was the time that I probably saw more movies in my life than ever—at least as far as going out to the movies was concerned—I
do feel that ‘80s cinema is, along with the ‘50s, the worst era in
Hollywood history,” he shares. “Matched only by now, matched only by the
current era!”
*’80s*’50s
Let it go. Just hitting the apostrophe key gets you this one: ‘90s. Circumventing that automatic formatting would be a hassle just to appease the one person who cares.
It’s a “hassle” to press the apostrophe key twice and delete the first apostrophe (more accurately, the opening single quote)? It takes less than a second.
I mean, it’s a couple of extra steps for something that only a raging pedant would care the slightest about.
By a raging pedant, you mean a copy editor for a periodical?
A what‒what for a what?
No, I meant what I said. Could this site use some copy-editing? Sure. When the Club publishes misspelt names, that’s a problem, because a person’s name is important. And sometimes there are sentences with entirely the wrong word or a sentence where you can clearly see the writer changed how they wanted to phrase it but didn’t properly delete the previous text.But language and grammar are primarily tools for communication. Did the “wrong” apostrophe make it impossible for you to tell the article was talking about the 1950s and the 1980s? No? Then picking it apart is just pedantry, and particularly petty. I think it’s a waste of time and suggesting the writer fiddle around typing and deleting apostrophes is a ludicrous suggestion.
Do you think it’s ludicrous for other periodicals and their copy editors to make sure to get such things right? Or is it just The A. V. Club that you would exempt from basic standards?Also:
But language and grammar are primarily tools for communication. Did the
“wrong” apostrophe make it impossible for you to tell the article was
talking about the 1950s and the 1980s? No? Then picking it apart is just
pedantry, and particularly petty.
If that’s an excuse, then you might as well misspell people’s names, as long as everyone knows who you mean: e.g., Bradd Pit. It looks like you’re being inconsistent.
Yeah, I genuinely think that picking on a backwards apostrophe used to denote a decade would be ludicrous for any periodical. There might be other, more technical examples where I could consider giving a pass to something like the AV Club and not a more august publication, but I’m not sure it’s super useful to get into that now.And people deserve to have their names spelled correctly because they are living human beings and deserve respect. It is a social courtesy and we are a social species. If you disrespect an apostrophe, it isn’t going to mind.
Yeah, I genuinely think that picking on a backwards apostrophe used to denote a decade would be ludicrous for any periodical.
Well, please stay away from the world of publishing.And people deserve to have their names spelled correctly because they are living
human beings and deserve respect. It is a social courtesy and we are a
social species. If you disrespect an apostrophe, it isn’t going to mind.But that’s not what you said earlier. You said that if it’s not impossible for the reader to tell what was meant, then correcting it is petty pedantry. You presented this as a perfectly general claim about language and grammar. Are you now abandoning that standard?
lol this guy thinks the A.V. Club has at any point in its history employed a copy editor
Precisely.
It’s more hassle than just typing the apostrophe key once, especially when you’ve got a deadline to meet and overall clarity is unaffected.
It’s also more hassle to check to make sure you’re spelling someone’s name correctly, but surely you don’t think that’s asking too much, do you?
Let it go, friend. You know full well that the two are different issues in several ways, and that it’s just stubbornness and pedantry to try and pretend otherwise. I’m not going to waste my time and yours explaining why misspelling someone’s name is different to using an apostrophe the wrong way round when abbreviating a decade, because we both know full well why it is and it’s not worth the argument.
???I never denied that the two are different issues. I pointed out that it’s also more hassle in the case of spelling people’s names. So, contrary to what you were suggesting, the mere fact that it’s more hassle doesn’t do away with the obligation to get things right.
Again, unless you’re a fool (and I don’t think you are one) you know full well why your comparison doesn’t really work, and why getting someone’s name correct in a piece of writing is considered more important than getting the apostrophe correct in the abbreviation of a decade, hence why the effort is more worth going into. You’re clearly just looking for an argument now and I’m not going to give you one, so like I say: just let it go.
Again, I wasn’t making a comparison. I was countering what I took to be your suggestion that a bit of copy editing’s being more of a hassle—even in only the tiniest way—somehow means it’s not worth doing. If you agree that it’s worth the extra hassle to get someone’s name right, then you agree it’s sometimes worth the extra hassle to get things right the way copy editors do. But then there’s nothing to be found in anything you’ve written that might give reason to think it’s not worth the trifling extra hassle to get the punctuation of decades right. In any case, you’re in no position to be giving orders, and I could with equal authority command you to just let it go.
‘Let it go’ was intended more as a suggestion than an order; this whole thing is just not worth our time and energy to argue about. It’s a minor (and frankly rather petty) point of grammar. You certainly do have equal authority to make the suggestion in our exchange, and I would happily do so — if you didn’t keep bothering me about it. You’re the one bringing it up and getting narky and defensive when people tell you not to worry about it, not me. And of course you were making a comparison between the two. You know that as well. To suggest that it’s worth making effort to get a minor use of the apostrophe right because it’s worth making the effort to get someone’s name right is to fundamentally compare the two and suggest they are of equal weight and importance in terms of grammar (when — frankly — they aren’t). Please don’t be disingenuous. Now, I’ve wasted enough time on this, frankly, so I’m done.
And of course you were making a comparison between the two. You know that as well. To suggest that it’s worth making effort to get a minor use of the apostrophe right because it’s worth making the effort to get someone’s name right is to fundamentally compare the two and suggest they are of equal weight and importance in terms of grammar (when — frankly — they aren’t). Please don’t be disingenuous.
No, you’re laboring under a serious confusion. Counterexamples aren’t comparisons.Suppose someone says it’s clear that Bill Gates is smart because he’s so wealthy, and someone else responds by pointing out that Donald Trump is wealthy but not smart at all. The respondent isn’t making a comparison of Donald Trump to Bill Gates. If anything, just the opposite: they’re using Donald Trump as a counterexample because they take him to be an extremely clear example both sides can agree to of someone wealthy who isn’t smart, which serves as a nice contrast to a case that is in dispute or at least currently under discussion (Gates). The whole point of such a counterexample is to undermine a proposed or presupposed general standard (in this case, whoever is wealthy is smart) by providing an extremely clear example that goes against the standard; naturally, then, such an example will tend to stand in contrast to the original case (which, being in dispute or under discussion, is likely to be rather less clear).
Likewise, when I point out that getting people’s names right takes extra effort but is still worth doing, I’m not making a comparison between getting people’s names right and getting certain apostrophes right. What I’m doing is providing a counterexample to the general standard I took you to be espousing (namely, that no copy editing that takes extra effort is worth doing). I’m certainly not saying the two matters are of equal weight and importance. On the contrary, I’m picking an example that I take to be of clearly greater weight and importance, so as to make it very clear that the general standard I’ve taken you to be espousing is incorrect. Were I to pick an example of equal weight and importance to the original case, it probably wouldn’t be very effective as a counterexample (much as, say, Warren Buffett or Jeff Bezos probably wouldn’t be very effective as a counterexample in the above case).
This is extremely straightforward and even elementary reasoning. Before making further baseless accusations of disingenuousness, you should probably double check to make sure you’re not confused again.
‘Let it go’ was intended more as a suggestion than an order; this whole thing is just not worth our time and energy to argue about. It’s a minor (and frankly rather petty) point of grammar. You certainly do have equal authority to make the suggestion in our exchange, and I would happily do so — if you didn’t keep bothering me about it. You’re the one bringing it up and getting narky and defensive when people tell you not to worry about it, not me.
I too am responding to replies in my inbox. If the fact that you are responding to a reply excuses you for not letting it go, then it equally excuses me for not letting it go. But of course you’ve yet to provide any reason in support of your suggestion to let it go, so I fail to see why either of us would need an excuse for not doing so. Finally, I daresay your comments exceed mine in sheer narkiness.
As far as I remember 80s and 50s is (was?) also acceptable in academic writing, so probably could just simplify it and drop the apostrophe altogether.
Just don’t write 80’s and 50’s.
Why not? It’s a perfectly good possessive. When one says the 80’s one is talking about the years that belong to that decade, so the apostrophe is appropriate.
Because time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
But seriously, I think it probably comes down to the style guide you’re using, and arguably since time is a concept it can’t actually possess anything.
I like his films, but everything Ive ever read about him makes me hate Tarantino as a person. He’s some weirdo with a foot fetish who loves to choke his actresses, say the N word, and hold decades long grudges against his mom, while talking about how all the films not made by him suck. If he hadnt gone into film making he’d be harassing women on the internet and asking them all these obscure questions to prove they are real nerds.
“He’s some weirdo with a foot fetish who loves to choke his actresses”
1) Who gives a fuck if he likes feet? Honestly, what the fuck do you care about his sexual interests?
2) He fucking does not. He did it once, in a scene in which a character was being choked, and he did it BECAUSE THE ACTRESS TRUSTED HIM TO DO IT.Fuck you and your pathetic judgmental bullshit.
What criteria is he using?The Hayes Code?The Blacklisting of people in Hollywood?The lack of diversity?Is it industry practices?Because I’m pretty sure anyone can come up with 50 or more great movies from each era he’s talking about. To me every time I hear one of these directors talk about the evils of Marvel, it mostly comes down to, “I’m not making as much money at the box office as I’d like to because Disney is crowding out the competition at the theaters.”
“What criteria is he using?”
Impromptu podcast conversation, asshole.
He’s not wrong.
Guy thinks the two best eras for movies is the worst. Lol ok.
Shock that a man who notoriously treats women like shit thinks that the most diverse era that film has ever known is the worst. Positively shocking.
eh, I hate QT myself, he’s massively overrated and 90% of his movies suck imo, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. We both know criticizing the dominance of generic CGI corporate entertainment products masquerading as movies is not about “diversity”.
The fact that he is ignoring the mountain of non-superhero movies in labeling this entire era is the entire point. Only looking at the snack aisle of the grocery store and saying there are no vegetables may be technically correct but also makes you sound pretty stupid.
I don’t understand his take on the 80’s but he doesn’t get into it so whatever. I’m not going to melt down like the people in the comments.Can anyone honestly say that he’s wrong? That think the constant recycling of tired IPs and obscure comic book characters into more big budget CGI and green screens has made this some golden era of cinema?All that’s driving media now is fandom and nostalgia. How many more fucking superhero movies do we need? How many more Star Wars spinoffs?
Some other site mentioned this interview (I think) and the clickbait thing was along the lines of “Tarantino names the best movie he’s made and -surprise- it’s not Pulp Fiction!”Which is just goofy. I gather his fave was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and that’s a fine choice. Why in god’s name would he say Pulp Fiction, which is great but over 25 years old? He’s learned some stuff since then and Hollywood is a much better and better-crafted movie. (In my opinion.)
“Why in god’s name would he say Pulp Fiction, which is great but over 25 years old?”
Why would age have anything to do with it?
“He’s learned some stuff since then and Hollywood is a much better and better-crafted movie.”
So? Is your favourite movie the best technically-made movie you’ve seen, or the one that meant most to you emotionally?
Jesus…are you a fucking robot? Have you met a human being?
I think repeatedly asking auteur filmmakers about Marvel specifically isn’t a useful conversation. Largely because a lot of Marvel’s movies are actually pretty good (for a certain definition of good – whether or not they’re quote-unquote “cinema” is another boring and unproductive debate).
I think instead the conversation needs to be about franchises, and how Disney, Sony, Warner, Amazon, Netflix and maybe one or two other companies own all of the big IPs and keep regurgitating that content endlessly.
If you want to talk about the death of cinema or whatever, you need to look at the Fantastic Beasts and Morbiuses and Black Adam and Ghostbusters and the next three Avatar movies, not just Black Panther 2.
They’re good but they’re very much a formula- which isn’t necessarily bad either, there are other examples of studios doing something similar, such as Universal’s horror films.The difference of course is that Universal’s horror films were B-pictures and not everyone was trying to rush to make the next Frankenstein (there were a few attempts). Like there is at least something weird in one studio having the top box office crown for as many years in a row as Disney has had, right? In the 90s it went from Universal (Jurassic Park) to Paramount (Forrest Gump) to WB (Batman Forever) to Fox (ID4) to Universal/Paramount (Titanic was a coproduction) to I think Touchstone? (Was Armageddon #1 for 1998 I forget.) And you even look at genres and there’s a nice spread, like action dominates but there’s also Gump there and the #2 picture for ‘94 was The Lion King. In 1979, even as the blockbuster era was getting up to speed, the top movie was Kramer vs. Kramer! We don’t see stuff like that. There’s something off in it just being franchise entry after franchise entry.
I don’t disagree with you. It’s weird, and probably bad for us all in several ways. I’d love for Disney to have more competition and own less of pop culture. But there’s also been a huge shift in how entertainment works. Now movies are competing with video games, cable television, YouTube and streaming services. Having a home theater used to be for rich people, now all you need is a decent flatscreen and a Roku box to have a pretty great time watching a movie at home.
There’s been a seismic shift in entertainment media since Kramer vs. Kramer. Probably several seismic shifts. It’s definitely more complicated than “Marvel ruined the movies and now they’re all the same.” Which might be true in some sense, but it’s not the whole story.
It’s probably more accurate to say that, due to corporate mergers, most movies in wide distribution are made by subsidiaries of Warner-Discovery, Sony, or Disney. Disney is the most successful, and the other two want to compete for Disney’s market share, rather than try to counter-program. That last point is the important one – it’s moviemaking along the same principles as, say, the auto industry. There’s probably still a theatrical market for non-action movies targeting adults (seeing a movie in the theater for the first time since 2019, I couldn’t believe how good it felt, but that’s not enough to numb my ass through a second-tier Marvel movie). But the market has really pushed smaller projects to streaming. When a studio loses a few million dollars on Bros, it’s a sign that there isn’t a theatrical market for romcoms, but when a studio loses hundreds of millions of dollars on a franchise IP, it just means they have to go bigger on the next one.
He wasn’t even talking about Marvel movies specifically. He made a comment about how bad the 80’s were as an era for film, and then compared the current era to the 80’s.I understand why its easy to read Marvel into it, since they’re the dominant franchise. But this era also includes Red Notice, The Gray Man, and like 50 terrible, instantly forgettable streaming movies every month. It’s an era where there’s maybe one good comedy each year, and it probably bombs at the box office.Marvel movies themselves aren’t necessarily the problem. But their dominance is a symptom of a very unhealthy industry. The problem is there’s no middle ground or vibrant indie scene, which makes a Marvel movie or a Top Gun Maverick seem better than they really are.
On it’s own, Captain America: Winter Soldier is a damn fine superhero/spy thriller movie. Russos for the win!
Marvel’s going to be the lightning rod, though, precisely because they’re the industry standard that Warner Bros and Sony are trying to match with their own less-successful franchises. (Avatar is an odder situation because it’s a franchise, but it’s also an auteur project written, directed, and produced by the original creator.) Once the bottom drops out (which it will eventually), studios might reshuffle money toward lower-budget productions with higher margins. Or they might not, depending what the landscape of streaming and theatrical release looks like. A lot of these filmmakers’ criticisms are probably about the disappearance of an older distribution model (and the back-end pay that came with it), rather than the death of cinema. The trouble is that nobody has the slightest idea where movies are heading. Streaming isn’t exactly new, but it’s pretty unstable right now. And we’re still coming out of one of the largest social disruptions of the past century.
I love both most Tarantino (give or take a Death Proof) and most MCU (give or take an Eternals), but the 80s had so much to love – most of Spielberg’s Indy / ET prime, Empire, Blade Runner, the emergence of James Cameron (Terminator, Aliens, Abyss), the Coens, Lynch with Elephant Man and Blue Velvet, Raging Bull plus a small handful of other Scorsese classics, Spinal Tap, Die Hard…
Agree with you on Death Proof; the full version is a bit too much…
“The problem is Disney has its foot on the industry’s neck! Its shapely, alluring foot … so firm, yet so supple…”
Television is doing the heavy lifting with a wide variety of stories while Marvel keeps the lights on the theatres.
Indeed, there has never been anything that everyone can cheer about.
If I ever meet Tarantino, I’m going to tell him my favorite of his films is True Romance. And when he says “I actually didn’t direct that one,” I’ll just say “I know.”
I don’t know if it’s because I’m an old man now, or what, but I haven’t been to very many movies over the last few years and the ones I have seen, mostly due to being harrassed by young guys I work with, have all been pretty bad, or worse. Any superhero movie now gets a pass from me at this point, I sat and squirmed and looked at my watch constantly (A sure sign I’m wanting it to be over) during the last couple of Marvel movies I went to. The other guys, every one of them, were shocked when I said, “I wasted $XX.XX for that POS?”. DC movies don’t get any love from me either at this point. TV seems to please me more than movies do at this point. I used to go to a lot of movies, in the ‘70’s up to the early ‘90’s, probably about 100 a year. Now it’s one or two, and I regret seeing/paying to see at least one of them.
Remember when this guy was whining about how he should be allowed to say the N word? It’s such an empty, snobby, elitist thing to say. Every era of film has trends, and there are also several standouts surrounded by a sea of shit that people have no love for. MST 3K is proof of that. Every single era. They went from musicals to westerns to space to self-aware horror to YA fantasy to reboot mania. For every Hitchcock classic in the 50s, there’s 10 racist John Wayne movies no one watches anymore. For every To Kill A Mockingbird, there’s 5 Gameras, 10 Roger Cormans, and that James Bond movie where Sean Connery was supposed to look Japanese. For every great, well-known 70s film, you have Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Moonraker, plastic shield Captain America, and countless exploitation schlock that died with the VHS format. The 80s were full of Star Wars and ET knock offs, the 90s had the rise of Michael Bay, Nothing But Trouble, Batman & Robin, multiple Shaq films, Wild, Wild West, Baby Geniuses, the 3 Ninjas franchise. The 00s had Battlefield Earth, the bad Crash movie won Best Picture, multiple Paris Hilton films, M. Night Shayamalan completing imploding up his own ass, Gigli, the ____ Movie franchise, Freddy Got Fingered, whatever the fuck happened that ended Mike Myers’ career, and 12 fucking Madea films. Every era.
“Remember when this guy was whining about how he should be allowed to say the N word?”He was only “whining” about it in response to the elitist PC snobs who were blubbering about the dreaded word appearing in his films in the first place. They’re the real bitches in this. I doubt QT would’ve brought up the issue at all were it not for their phony hissy fit.
He’s going to change his tone when Marvel announce a new superhero franchise:
The seductive Feet-woman
The 80s was in his eyes the worst era ?!?! The years of the best action movies ever ? I would say that the 70s were the worst years and yes, today also.
Survivor bias opinion?
The 80’s is literally saved by ’82 being one of the best movie years ever. Up there with ‘ 39 and ’99.
Just look at the movies from 1983 and 1984 and how they have held up.https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&year=1983-01-01,1983-12-31&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,deschttps://www.imdb.com/search/title/?title_type=feature&year=1984-01-01,1984-12-31&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,descMy Gen X heart thinks 84 might be the best movie year of my childhood.
Quentin Tarantino is also a hack.
Every era in Hollywood history has featured both excellent films and shitty ones. For historical eras, we largely only remember two specific classes of films, the classics and the B-movie cult stuff which people love precisely because it’s so ridiculous and cheesy, while there was a whole range of stuff in that era that’s been totally forgotten about because it was neither great nor bad enough to fall into the “so bad it’s good” camp.The 1980s, however, are recent enough that pop culture still has generational memory of the generic or mildly bad stuff. People of Tarantino’s vintage (and mine) actually still remember shit like Teen Wolf and Howard the Duck and the shitty Exorcist sequels, because they were around during our formative years (childhoods, teens or early 20s) when we had the most free time to devote to watching movies.So, in a lot of ways, the 1980s are really just where pop culture’s vulnerability to survivorship bias really starts to kick in the heaviest: prior to that, we mostly just remember the films that have actually stood the test of time for one reason or another, while the 1980s are an era when people actually still remember some of the junk that didn’t. So it may seem like Hollywood took a major downturn in the 1980s, when really it’s just that we’re comparing all film from that decade, both the good and the bad, to only the standouts from before it.I’d also add that I’ve got nothing against Marvel films; I’m not the kind of guy who feels the need to line up for them on opening weekend, but I’m not going to turn my nose up at an opportunity to see them at a later date. But as a guy whose own tastes lean more toward the kind of films that I might never get to see at all outside of a film festival, I do wish superhero franchises weren’t more or less the only kind of films actually available in the theatres the rest of the year.
What’s he complaining about? His last film, Once Upon a Time, made $377 million. Not too shabby when there were so many people who hated it. Personally I think he doesn’t like the fact that no one is trying to copy his style anymore.