Brace yourselves: Quentin Tarantino has a new Marvel opinion
Quentin Tarantino thinks there are no modern movie stars because of the "Marvel-ization of Hollywood."
Aux News Quentin Tarantino
Only three short years have passed since the fateful day Martin Scorsese first declared Marvel movies to be not really his thing. But in that time, so, so many other decorated directors—including the likes of Francis Ford Coppola, Bong Joon-Ho, and Ridley Scott—have announced their own membership in this merry band of super-haters. (What is this, The Boys?)
The most recent addition to the anti-Iron-Man league is Quentin Tarantino, whose newest issue is, perhaps surprisingly, not with The Mouse quietly removing Marvel’s more graphic scenes from some of its shows. His gripe is more in the vein of the other great cinematic discourse of our time: the death of the movie star.
“Part of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood is… you have all these actors who have become famous playing these characters, but they’re not movie stars, right?” the Once Upon A Time In Hollywood director asked in a recent interview on the podcast “2 Bears 1 Cave” (via Variety). He continued: “Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star. I mean, I’m not the first person to say that. I think that’s been said a zillion times… but it’s like, you know, it’s these franchise characters that become a star.”
But don’t worry; he still loves those beefy dudes IRL. “I’m not even putting them down frankly, to tell you the truth,” he said of Chrises one-and-all. “But that is… the legacy of the Marvel-ization of Hollywood movies.”
The director even went so far as to—try to contain your shock—actually admit that he used to be a fan of the comics. “There’s an aspect that if these movies were coming out when I was in my twenties, I would totally be fucking happy and totally love them,” he said.
Still, his “only axe to grind against them is they’re the only things that seem to be made,” he continued. “They’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them. That’s what they’re excited about. And so it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem.”
So, there you have it. Yet another Marvel take. But hey, at least it’s not about method acting again, right?
209 Comments
Why is Tarantino doing the circuit right now anyway? He was apparently also on Stern recently saying all this same stuff.
He’s promoting a new book.
Oh no, does this mean we’ll get a thousand articles with dribs and drabs of nonsense like with Chandler’s book tour?
No, the AVClub is going to entirely change their methods for this book tour.
Looks that way…
“Exclusive: Quentin Tarantino Perfectly Happy Keanu Reeves Still Alive, Book Reveals”.
Ah, thanks. I was missing that connection and wondering why he was being such a grumpy old man, publicly and lately.
I’ve listened to some of the podcasts they’re pulling these quotes from, and I wouldn’t say he’s any grumpier than he’s ever been. He’s a lively guest (to put it mildly), and he’s giving frank responses to questions he’s being asked.
So the basic idea is this: they’re fun little chunks of spectacle, but there’s so goddamned many of them (and similar genre-focused, franchise-launching fare) that it’s exhausting at times.If so, that’s fine. I agree.
just don’t watch them, I never watched Fast and the Furious movies and I don’t complain about how many or popular they are. Assume they weren’t made for you and you’ll be happy.
I think people’s main problem with it is that the superhero movies are being made instead of other types of movies
Sure, but that’s a silly argument for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that there are still plenty of other movies one could watch.
Not megabudget high-octane blockbusters, though. Those are fun in their own special way, and if you want to see a non-superhero one now you basically only have a Mission: Impossible and a Fast & Furious every few years
A particularly odd argument during a year when the biggest movie by far wasn’t a superhero movie. I think what you’re saying is perception rather than fact, especially when considering streaming releases as well.
If you’re referring to Top Gun, the movie about the 60 year-old man who could fly better than any of the youngest pilots in the world and literally survived a suicide mission that was exactly like the end of Star Wars, that was 100% a superhero movie.
If we’re going with ludicrously expansive definitions like that, have at it.
“that was 100% a superhero movie”Eh, the whole movie was about staying alive because the human body is a fragile, aging bag of meat. Nick an artery and you’ll bleed out while you cry for mommy. Superhero movies will have Tony Stark survive a 30G slam into a skyscraper two blocks away, then fall 40 stories… and survive to quip about it. There is no mortality in superhero movies. That’s why they’re a stretch. They’re not about the human experience, so there’s only so much we share with them. Top Gun 2’s mission was all about death. Making it back. How many times did Thor survive something that would otherwise turn the average Russian soldier into a wheezing, dying, limbless torso?
Tom Cruise crashed an experimental plane going some ridiculous times the speed of sound, and walked into a diner without a scratch.
Fine, and the rest of the movie was about keeping people from dying. And dead people. Collateral was about life and death. Valkyrie was about death, and preventing it. Top Gun 1 was also about fragile little meatbags in aluminum tubes, and the impact of someone actually dying.I think there absolutely is a “cinema test”, and it’s a narrow fuzzy band where it crosses over. The test is whether people are discussing what it means to be alive, facing death, and being ultimately fragile humans. In the fantasy zone you have Interview with the Vampire and Jack Reacher. In the fuzzy overlap zone you might have Mission Impossible. In the reality zone you have Born on the Fourth of July and The Color of Money. Reality IS uncomfortable, I’m not going to watch Fishbowl or Eyes Wide Shut to escape. And escape is needed, for sure. Escape movies can have human elements. Shit, my favorite franchise is 007 and that’s a weird, warped world which is escapism woven into reality (and to me that’s even more escapist, almost schizoid).But living in pure fantasy is like never leaving the house. Marvel may as well be Snow White or Transformers. Necessary? Sure. Well made? Sure. But anyone who “relates” to Tony Stark or Captain America on a deep level has some things to work through.
Is that true, though? Top Gun and Jurassic World both came out this year. Uncharted did pretty well. We just had a run of Star Wars movies and we just had a James Bond movie last year. Wasn’t there that ridiculous movie about the moon crashing into the Earth just this year? Presumably those all count as blockbusters (at least based on budget), right?If anything it seems like we have MORE big budget blockbusters than we used to, because we have so many of these high-risk, high-reward superhero films. If we ignored the superhero films, though, I feel like there are still plenty beyond that.Now, if your argument is that we don’t have any non-franchise big budget blockbusters anymore, that’s probably a fair critique but it has also probably been true for a while.
Okay, but…::sigh::Okay, consider you’re a horror fan who is sick of vampires. You like werewolves, but they aren’t “bankable” like vampires, so vampires are the in thing. Studios won’t greenlight a werewolf movie.Could you watch classic werewolf cinema and ignore the vampire glut? Sure. But I’d have to think that it might be a bit dismaying that new material just isn’t on the table.It ain’t hard to grok, if you don’t reject the concept outright.
“I wish they made more werewolf movies” is so completely distinct a sentiment from “they’re the only things that seem to be made,” (as well as the derivative “they’re being made instead of other types of movies” to which I was directly responding) as to be irrelevant to the conversation. Which QT seemed to acknowledge when he clarified with “And so it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now.” Yeah, okay, that’s true, this era of cinema, however that’s defined, sure could be described as the Superhero era, but that still doesn’t make “they’re the only things that seem to be made” any more true.It’s hyperbole, nothing more.
So one can’t have an opinion on a thing when they have an option to use a different thing? That is not great criticism and is no argument at all.“I think PT Cruisers are ugly ““ Well don’t drive, look at, or know they exist, then! “
Yeah it’s not as tho other films don’t exist anymore.
Hate your usual shtick, but yes, that’d be the point.Also, “just don’t watch them” is asinine logic when there’s oversaturation.
It’s not a shtick. It’s a valuable service that’s desperately needed.My Instagram that’s nothing but AI-generated pictures of Michael Chiklis is a shtick
“It’s not a shtick. It’s a valuable service that’s desperately needed.”Narrator: It isn’t
“Valuable” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Yeah, dismissing pedants. Not in the fucking mood for people who pretend that a clear metaphor is somehow opaque.
Well there are other movies being made, the real problem is studios expectations of what constitutes a successful movie has been blown wildly out of proportion. Like they more or less require 100+% ROI or it’s not “successful” Like budget + marketing budget is $400 mill, if it makes less than $800 million it’s a “Failure”
It’s Disney making Marvel movies and tv, Disney isn’t going to give Tarantino and Scorcese money any time soon, and their movies are made for selected audiences, if you don’t like mob movies you don’t watch Scorcese, if you don’t watch borderline racism movies you don’t watch Tarantino, not even mentioning millions of kids that watch superhero movies are not going to watch them.
This. And the fact that “superhero” movies really made the big blockbuster existing IP movie the financially feasible movie to be made in the current era.
Ehhhh this old stance. The bottom line is that those movies “that aren’t getting made” that you refer to don’t fill the slot of MCU films tho. MCU films are the current backbone of Hollywood because they make the money that keeps it afloat. The movies you claim aren’t being made are never going to be positioned as those tentpole type movies.
Bottom line, MCU films are not the reason films you like aren’t getting made. In fact they are actually the reason films you like ARE getting made (one for me, one for them type thinking).
My point is that if these pesky superhero films didn’t exist something else would need to fill that moneyhole and it’s not the films you think aren’t being made’s job. It just happens that its comicbook films right now. That wasn’t always true and wont always be true going forward. It’s just that’s where the money is.
That’s what this debate boils down – the MCU is the current iteration of risk-averse, homogenous product from the film industry. Older directors complain about it because they’ve worked during periods when studios backed a greater variety of movies. Nobody really considers is the MCU’s “fault” that the filmmaking economy is broken. But the MCU is the product of a broken economy, and it shows.
“just don’t watch them”Oh, I’m aware! Which is why I watch some and ignore others. ☺️
But having a reasonable take like this won’t generate clicks! Think about the clicks for fading media news companies!
Apparently my werewolf flick genre metaphor was a bridge too far. 🤣But yeah, it makes sense to me that people who would like to see *more* of their types of flicks would roll their eyes at the “superhero spectacle” era. Because, obviously, it means that there is less room for stuff that doesn’t adhere to the bankable trend. This shit ain’t hard to grok.
Not. The. Same.What’s the point of loudly missing the point? You just want people to know you’re stupid?
Just don’t read comments you don’t like.
I’m the same way but I actually got curious (having not seen any of them except the first Fast & Furious film) after reading Popcorn Champs on here or whatever it was (ahh the good old AVC days) Some kind of run of the series thing.
It mostly wasn’t for me but Furious 7 is straight up ridiculous and had me splitting at my sides. The Rock seeing explosions on the hospital TV and saying “Toretto” then flexing his cast off and heading off into the climax only to fire a machine gun in the middle of a busy street is amazing. Furious 7 is like a cars-action movie trying to be an MCU film and it’s fucking amazing, peak of the franchise. I’m certain I’m misremembering this but I swear The Rock says “think I’d miss this party?” when he arrives at the fight scene. I actually typically don’t enjoy The Rock but he is extremely well employed here as an ensemble player. It’s a genuine shame him and Vin don’t get along IRL.
A soft shout-out to The Rock’s first Fast film “Fast Five”, a lot of people call that one the best but I just love it for the sweaty buff bald dude fight between The Rock and Vin Diesel at the climax. Top notch.
Agree about Fast and the Furious. I consider my movie/program watching time precious. Not going to waste it on that.
Hemsworth comes the closest though. Rush, heart of the sea, and Blackhat are all roles for a movie star but they weren’t big hits.
In reality, there’s at least a dozen actors either established or just on the cusp of superstardom in the Marvel era. Chris Evans is nearly as close as Hemsworth, he’s just short a movie or two, and Jason Momoa surely eclipses them both. Timotheé Chalamet and Anya Taylor-Joy aren’t quite marquee worthy, but they’re established A-Listers with entire careers ahead of them. Florence Pugh and Oscar Isaac are probably already able to sell tickets on their name alone.
Obviously the nature of the business and stardom itself has changed pretty dramatically in the past two decades, but I think Marvel is less the cause of that, and more just the one studio that really caught hold of the wave at exactly the right time and has been riding it ever since. It’s easy (and fun!) to blame Disney for the state of movies these days, but I honestly think we’d be in virtually the same boat even if they hadn’t bought Marvel.
personally, i don’t think ‘oscar isaac’ has any box office sauce at all. if he did he’d be making movies. i like ‘the card counter’ but aside from that (which barely came out) he hasn’t been the lead in a theatrically released project in a while.
Oscar Isaac has been super busy since I first saw him in the Coen Bros’ Inside Llewyn Davis. Annihilation, A Most Violent Year, Ex Machina, Triple Frontier, Dune, Star Wars, X-Men, Moon Knight. They’re not all blockbusters, but the dude hasn’t stopped, what are you talking about??
the last projects he’s made have been tv, was my point. if he had box office juice he would be…lighting up the box office.
That’s my fault for using an old benchmark of stardom to describe new stars, but I don’t think think it matters all that much that he hasn’t carried a movie all by himself recently, despite that being functionally what a movie star used to do. If not for the shifting dynamics in the industry, I think he would be doing those projects on the level of a Pitt or a Ford regularly these days. As it is, he was certainly far more of a draw for Dune than Chalamet himself (Though I do think it’s going to be Dune that ends up solidifying that guy as a movie star). And I don’t know how you feel about Moon Knight, but I don’t think that project comes together anywhere near as well as it did without him. If a new Bourne or Rambo role was written and Isaac cast in it, I think the movie could profit on his name. The fact that these days actors have more space to do what they like instead of necessarily providing studios with huge hits year after year doesn’t really change that.
Idk, ever since Ex Machina I basically see anything Isaac stars in. There was a whole legion of people who convinced themselves that Moon Knight was good (It was not good!) that would argue with you.
Moon Knight was SO not good…
I only watched The Card Counter because of him, and maybe partly because I’m hopeful that another poker movie will come along that’s as good as as Rounders, but it was not good. Felt cheap, and I couldn’t bring myself to care about what happened to any of the characters.
I agree that Marvel can’t be the entire cause (if at all). You’re right, they did catch hold of a wave: I don’t know if that wave is about patriotism or extreme individualism, a desire on the viewer’s part to see justice happen or just a longing for corniness. I’m not a Marvelite but I appreciate the hustle (and some of the product).
I assume Tarantino was a comics reader at one time, since there are references to the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer in Reservoir Dogs, there’s David Carradine’s monologue about Clark Kent and Superman in Kill Bill, Vol. 2, and there’s the debate about the “true” Silver Surfer that Tarantino is said to have written for Crimson Tide
I still hold that Bill’s monologue fundamentally misunderstands the nature of Superman.
(that said I’d totally watch a Tarantino-directed version of Superman based on that premise. Someone make that happen).
Wait, but why? I think maybe Bill is casting Superman’s view of humans as overly negative to aid his point that Beatrix would be betraying her fundamental nature by quitting the assassin squad. But the idea that Clark Kent is the only alter ego that is also the costume is interesting, and depending on the depiction of Clark, a rather sweet and innocent view of humanity.
Oddly this monologue actually has some serious staying power with me. I had no idea what you were referring to and then suddenly it thrust forward in the catacombs of my mind. Well done Tarantino.
Yes, it’s only notable for how thoroughly Bill misses the point. I’m uncertain if Tarantino was putting his actual thoughts about Superman in Bill’s mouth, or if he was showing that a fucking sociopath like Bill could never get the concept of a hero like Superman.
I think it is very much the latter. I think Bill’s Superman monologue is a really interesting demonstration of how fundamentally misguided he is. It goes along well with his inability to understand Beatrix.
He wrote a spec Silver Surfer script once.
true romance also had its share of comic references
Of course! Clarence works in a comic book store! I can’t believe I forgot that! Thank you for reminding me
Anthony Hopkins, Glenn Close, Samuel Jackson, Patrick Stewart etc etc etc, are laughing away to the bank making Marvel money. The problem is that their agencies don’t work with Disney so they are not getting calls. Same thing happened with CGI movies, they all complained about Pixar movies and until Shrek nobody else was making money, their studio exclusivities tie them with Paramount and/or Warner Bros and they don’t have a Marvel equivalent, all complain because their are not part of it.
“Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star.”I mean, even if this is true, which I’m not prepared to say it is, why is that a problem? Why is creating a “star” more important than creating characters that people love and connect with? If you ask Chris Evans would he rather be a “movie star” or would he rather embody a character that people love for decades, which do you think he’d choose? This criticism says a lot more about Tarantino’s values than it does about any deficits in the Marvel movies.
“Why is creating a “star” more important than creating characters that people love and connect with?”Why are you manufacturing things to be offended about?He didn’t say the thing that has you frothing at the mouth, YOU did.
“My only axe to grind against them is they’re the only things that seem to be made,” is less a criticism of the work itself than the studio system giving rise to it.I think he’s totally right about the lack of movie stars, and in that case I don’t know that he’s critiquing so much as making an observation. But he’s hardly the first to argue that, as he notes. There was a neat reading of Top Gun: Maverick as a metaphor for the studios’ failure to develop new movie stars in the generation after Cruise/Pitt/Clooney/etc., i.e. Miles Teller and co. are training to be the main attraction but Tom Cruise needs to be called back in because when push comes to shove, it’s his name that can put butts in seats.
I mean Brad Pitt starred in his last film and Pitt’s a “Movie Star”. Also, as you mentioned, Tom Cruise is also very much a “Movie Star” and Top Gun: Maverick was totally the type of movie a “Movie Star” stars in. Right down to him getting the girl in the end and kissing her in the sunset.
This all depends on a definition of “movie star” not just as “celebrity who stars in movies” but “megastar celebrity whose presence in a movie single-handedly ensures its box office success.” Personally, I think there’s a good argument that the second category is smaller than it used to be. And anyway, even the existing stars are starting to need the IP’s to put butts in seats. Cruise makes bank from existing franchises like Mission Impossible and Top Gun, but something like Edge of Tomorrow didn’t make a ton of money (although having watched it on a plane today, it should have…)
It’s just that it’s not true that they’re the only movies being made. I get that it was hyperbole, but…it’s just not true. Other movies are being made. His shit ass movies are still getting made. So… what?
“Quentin Tarantino, acclaimed filmmaker” is getting movies made circa 2021, because he’s a franchise at this point. Does Pulp Fiction get made today by someone whose only credit is a low-budget, single-location crime movie? Probably not. (I will let the “shit ass” pass without comment except to defend Jackie Brown, which is a top 5-er for me.)
This is not a new discussion, but there really has been a significant shift in how studios have allocated their funding and which films are getting green-lit. Think of movies like Fracture (2007) with Anthony Hopkins, just a random psychological thriller with a big-name star pitched at adults with no ties to existing IP. There are less of those, because they stopped making money and franchises picked up the slack. I don’t really understand your criticism of his position, because it’s less of a position and more just stating what the trends have been the last decade.
“because he’s a franchise at this point”And so is Marvel, so why does he get to blame Marvel for being a franchise doing franchise things?“Does Pulp Fiction get made today by someone whose only credit is a low-budget, single-location crime movie? Probably not.”It was also a longshot for that to happen in 1994, though. “Probably not” would have been the same answer in 1994.
My thing with the whole “Captain America is the star” thing is that… it’s not new. Look at the James Bond franchise. Are people going because it’s Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig? No, they’re going because it’s James Bond. It’s no different with superhero films. Comic book movies are the biggest example, especially currently, but they certainly didn’t invent the trend. On that same note, and I’m genuinely asking here: are people going to go see Glass Onion because of Daniel Craig, or because they enjoyed the character of Benoit Blanc?(That said: I do agree with QT that we’re severely oversaturated with comic book movies and TV shows at this point and, as much as I love them in general, I wouldn’t mind a little bit of a respite.)
It’s a circular argument. I enjoy the character of Benoit Blanc, but if you told me Daniel Craig couldn’t come to contract terms on a sequel and the part was now being played by Sam Rockwell or Ewan McGregor (or if Rian Johnson said it was his long-lost brother, Berlin Blanc or some shit) I’d feel differently.
I’d probably still see it, for the supporting cast and because I love those movies, but it would be different.
Agree. Franchise movies have always run on the character being the star. That’s the only way it works. If people are only seeing Black Panther because of who plays Black Panther, then that whole franchise would have been screwed. There’s room for franchises and non-franchises. I don’t know why some people are acting like the existence of big franchises is ruining it for everyone else.I don’t flock to all the Marvel movies either, but I’m not sitting around bitter because they exist. I just watch something else and mind my business.
Okay, but YOU are not in a position to try to get movies made. Whereas QT IS. Scorsese IS.Comments like this drive me crazy because they completely ignore the context of who was asked the Marvel question. What’s crazy is that the people responding have their own cache as filmmakers and even THEY are struggling to get shit made. People will look at them and say, “Well what’s Quentin complaining about? He can get a movie made.” Yeah, fucking *barely*. Does anyone honestly believe that Scorsese WANTED to go to Netflix for The Irishman? “Well streaming is good for those guys.” Sure, but so are actual fucking theaters, but good luck to them getting a studio to release something non-hero theatrically.It’s a cheap rhetorical tactic so I try to avoid it, but… man… You think it’s so easy, YOU go make a fucking non-Marvel movie.
Oh no, rich white guys aren’t getting funded by the three superhero distributors?Oh, the great challenge of being a successful filmmaker that still gets their work funded and distributed regardless. If only Disney could have found a way to successfuly market a four hour movie starring men in their 70s to line Scorsese’s pockets more. What is our society coming to?! God is dead!
The irony of you using Mr. Pink to make your point… You do realize that he was being an asshole, right?Right?And fucking spare me the righteous sarcasm. The indie world has *always* struggled to get funding. When even mainstream filmmakers can’t get a film made unless it’s an IP tentpole with a built in nerd culture audience or it goes to streaming, that’s bad.(And yes, I’m aware that stuff like Tar and Smile still gets made. It’s a generalization, there are always exceptions.)
I mean, I think he was expressing the views an asshole would have, but it comes off more like authentic Tarantino soapbox that seems to be validated by Mr. Orange changing his mind and asking for his dollar back. Half the comments in a YouTube clip of that scene are a bunch of cheap asses in total agreement, some even going beyond Mr. Pink and saying something along the lines of, “Tarantino is 100% right about tipping.” Because he has the most valid arguments, while the others universally make it about pity, confirming Mr. Pink’s assertion that they’re only socially conforming, with no counter arguments to his points.Getting a movie funded is hard. It has always been hard. In spite of there being a trendy scapegoat for these crusty dinosaurs to be bitter towards, I once again make the point with zero sarcasm this time: their movies are still being funded. And again, Disney, Sony, and Warner Bros are the only three making superhero movies, with the vast majority of releases being of the non-superhero variety.And before you try to argue that these three distributors are spending more money on superhero movies, you should acknowledge that the reason is because they earned it. They gradually escalated their budgets as the audience and profit grew until they crossed the multi billion dollar threshold. If Scorsese wants $500 million to make another mob movie with old white guys, no heart, and one minor female character, then he has to prove his work can more than make back that investment. Same with Tarantino, but with feet, the N word, etc.
You’re not wrong. You’re also making it largely a financial matter where he and Scorsese are making artistic points. Granted, QT is tying it up in more financial concerns by talking about “movie stars” but I think that’s just a vocabulary issue. And I’m not laying the blame solely at Disney’s feet, although I also think the conversation is about more than tights and flights shit. It’s more broadly nerd culture nostalgia porn and even more broadly safe, reliable IP. Which is the grist of the Great Mouse Satan’s mill. That stuff is eating up all the attention and money. And yes, OF COURSE it makes sense since auds have been eating that shit up in droves. But there’s the argument that auds won’t venture beyond their pablum if you don’t *offer* more than that. I’m glad that horror is a force in that regard but to bring it back to the tiresome (but yes, important) topic of cash, horror is notoriously cheap to produce. As a horror guy I’m loving the interest. I just wish it wasn’t so clearly positioned as counter-programming.Man…. I dunno. I just generally wish comic movie stans and pop culture commentariat would stfu about this shit and stop acting like older filmmakers are being dumb cranks with nothing valid to say.And please, respectfully fuck off with the “straight old white guy” comments like I don’t acknowledge that privilege. I fucking *get it*. The sad thing is that Disney has everyone convinced that they’re progressive because they’ve been more diverse in their storytelling. Yeah, because that’s a fucking *market* they can exploit. Better than no representation at all, fair enough. But let’s not pretend they’re good guys.
My point about old white guys, specifically The Irishman, is that cast is not the box office draw to modern audiences that they would have been in 1992, and even at the peak of Scorsese’s success, it’s not remotely to the extent of the Marvel films. Marvel Studios started as independent, Iron Man cost less than The Irishman and was paid for with a bank loan. Iron Man made back more than three times its budget, while The Irishman lost something like $120 million. The bizarre thing is that De Niro and Pesci alone supposedly cost $40 million, and the rest of the budget was spent on digitally de-aging them. It’s like he wanted to play with his friends and make them a lot of money, instead of giving any sort of reasonable pitch to any movie studio where he would use younger actors and age them up with makeup for a fraction of the cost. It all just looks like his own entitled stubbornness making him bitter that no one would fund his vanity debt sinkhole, while all these shit undeserving movies for the unwashed masses that he’s never seen are getting these giant budgets and generating massive profit. Even if the MCU was not a thing, anyone would be stupid to pay $160 million+ for a $30 million movie that may or may not be successful.
And Tarantino’s admitted comic fandom has big, “I liked superheroes before they were cool,” hipster energy. Him saying that fan bases are only excited about Marvel movies is pretty strange. What is a fan base but a following of a franchise? Should people be excited about Star Wars or Fantastic Beasts or Jurassic World? It’s just weird. Same with his assertion that there are no other movies being made, when most of our favorite movies in the past couple years have no superheroes. He just resents that they exist and people like them.It’s one thing for someone to say a genre isn’t for them, or that comic book movie X isn’t as subjectively good as some other movie, but this is just snobbery and gatekeeping. They’re outright saying that what you like isn’t good art, without even having seen the best recent offerings to be able to have that opinion be valid. Tarantino says he would love these movies if he was in his 20s, but he would probably love them now if he saw them. It is just disrespectful to the fans, actors, directors, and writers of these films for no purpose other than self importance. It’s indefensible, really. Doesn’t mean their movies aren’t great, just that their attitude needs to be adjusted.
I truly don’t understand what this comment is intending to convey. I don’t know what it is that you think I think is “so easy,” and I don’t know why I need to make a movie to have an opinion on this. I’m not in a position to get movies made, but QT is, so he should go on making his shitty movies as he is in a position to do. I’m sorry it’s hard for him (lol he’s been making a movie every couple of years consistently since the 90s so yeah I can see how it’s so very difficult for him), but that’s not Marvel’s fault. Nobody owes him a competition-free scene in which to produce films.
Sometimes I don’t know either. It’s not like I universally love QT. I fell off around Death Proof, which I actively dislike.I just get defensive of these older, established filmmakers getting shit talked by nerd culture dicks, most of whom have never tried to make anything. It doesn’t invalidate any of their opinions. I just get cranky. Kick me in the shin and throw an edible in my mouth while I’m screaming.
I think I need to acknowledge that I’m part of the problem. AV Club clearly clickbaits with these articles and I fall for it. If you see me on any of these endless fucking Marvel nonsense threads again, remind me of what I said here. I will no longer engage.
You got it.
I might be a dick, but I don’t qualify as “nerd culture,” whatever that means. In fact, if anyone is a “nerd culture dick,” it’s Quentin Tarantino. So I don’t know what you mean by has never tried to make anything, but I did make two children, so I think that counts. Quentin Tarantino is an asshole. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, of course, but I don’t know why anyone would jump to his defense just because he’s an “established filmmaker.” So are the folks who make the Marvel movies, if that’s the criterion we’re using to say no one should “shit talk” someone.
I really like how your second child built on the themes and universe of the first one.
The sequel definitely increased the destruction factor. Somehow it didn’t make me want to go for the trilogy.
Franchise movies have always run on the character being the star.Die Hard, Terminator, Iron Man, Jurassic Park (the T-Rex), and James Bond disagree with you.
Die Hard would be nothing without Bruce Willis (and with his retirement due to aphasia, I don’t see it getting rebooted anytime soon), the sole Terminator movie that didn’t involve Arnold, Salvation, did the worst out of all the movies save for Dark Fate (and Salvation was starring Christian Bale, who was doing hot at the time), RDJ absolutely made Iron Man a hit (which is why the MCU backed up the Brinks truck to get him to stay on for as long as he did), Jurassic Park 3 bombed because they killed off the T-Rex (yes, people literally complained about the T-Rex being replaced by the Spinosaurus), and the highest grossing James Bond movies (adjusting for inflation) starred Daniel Craig and Sean Connery, while the worst performing ones by an actor who did multiple were the Timothy Dalton films. Hell, lets go further: Beverly Hills Cop, Lethal Weapon, Rocky.
Also, the logic that its primarily the character that brings in the money, and not the performer, falls on its face when you consider the financial aspect. If the studio knows the character brings in the dough, then they’d change the performer as soon as the character got hot because they could save money on the performer’s salary. Put another way, if a sports team could be as successful with a team of players earning the minimum salary as they would with a team earning as much as Lebron James or Patrick Mahomes, they’d always choose to save the money if the same level of success was guaranteed. There’s literally a NYT Bestseller and Oscar-winning movie about doing just that: Moneyball.
For example, RDJ was clearing over $50m per movie by the time he left the MCU. You don’t think Disney would’ve gladly added that money to their coffers if they knew that recasting the role wouldn’t hurt the bottom line? Don’t get me wrong, there are certain cases where the character is the draw, not the performer, but when it comes to lead characters, the association between the performer and character is often so strong that a studio is loathe to recast
Look at the James Bond franchise. Are people going because it’s Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig? No, they’re going because it’s James Bond.The Bond franchise isn’t a particularly good example because although it’s a franchise, many Bond films aren’t made with ensemble casts like many films in the MCU are, especially nowadays in Phase Four.
The reality is that, in James Bond, not only was the actor playing Bond undoubtedly the biggest star in the film (and it, as a role, made 3 of its 6 leading actors — Connery, Brosnan, and Craig — into legit movie stars), but people would often switched allegiances when the actor who played Bond changed. This is obviously true because the studio would save a great deal of money if they simply changed the actor every time for someone less expensive (especially with Connery and Craig, whose salary demands for their penultimate and ultimate movies were some of the highest in all of Hollywood).
To your point about Craig in Glass Onion, I think that’s a bad analogy because Craig is playing a character who is decidedly unlike his role in James Bond. So what you have is an interesting mix of people who like Benoit Blanc the character, and those who like the fact that Craig is playing a character wholly unlike his most popular one. And, to be perfectly honest, the two reasons most people saw the original Knives Out because they were either fans of Rian Johnson, or fans of Daniel Craig, with a smattering of people who like murder mysteries thrown in. None of the other performers (even Jamie Lee Curtis or Don Johnson) were pulling in the numbers that Rian writing/directing or Craig starring did.
People had a hard time believing that the Will Smith could be an action hero movie star, then he did Bad Boys and Independence Day, and they had a hard time thinking he could do dramatic, so he did Ali and Pursuit of Happyness. I’m of the opinion that Tom Cruise’s best roles are when he’s playing a character unlike “movie star Tom Cruise”, so his roles in Collateral, Interview with the Vampire, Born on the 4th of July, and (to a lesser extent) Tropic Thunder stand out.
And people had a hard time believing Smith could get jiggy wit it, until he released “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It”.
Is he saying it’s a problem, or that’s just the state of the industry? Seems like his broader point (below) is more relevant, and not wrong? Still, his “only axe to grind against them is they’re the only things that seem to be made,” he continued. “They’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them. That’s what they’re excited about. And so it’s just the fact that they are the entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not really much room for anything else. That’s my problem.”
I get that, but I just don’t think what he’s saying is true. It’s not the only set of movies that people get excited about, and they aren’t the only movies getting made.
It’s a problem for people who want to see movies that require “star-power” to get greenlit. Most Hollywood movies about adults sell on star power. Romantic comedies, comedies, dramas, period dramas—these movies sell on star power. If you’d rather watch Marvel, cool, but don’t act like people who enjoy movies about non-superheroes (or non franchise movies) aren’t losing something.
That’s hardly a problem with franchise films though, right? More that the film industry doesn’t know how to sell films beyond using a culture of celebrity-worship as a crutch.This is how we get Chris Pratt as Mario, btw.
Having ten bankable movie stars constantly trying to keep an entire industry afloat is not exactly an ideal situation for a lot of reasons. I can remember how movies and theaters were supposedly dying until Titanic came along to save them over twenty years ago, and then the year after that came out, they were dying even worse than before because ticket sales were down after a boom year. Not only were they not going to keep the money coming in that way, it also kept back hundreds of great actors and plenty of movies for the same reason: If you need to have Angelina Jolie or Matt Damon on the poster to get it made, that’s one less Thomasin Mckenzie or Regé-Jean Page who gets that spot and a chance to shine.
Star power still gets vehicles like Amsterdam or Ticket to Paradise greenlit, for better or for worse. But the new system gets more Emily the Criminal and Mr. Malcom’s List types than before too. Of course, hardly anyone is seeing many of these movies, stars or not, but that’s because of more reasons than just Capes.
I’ve seen like four Marvel movies so I don’t have any stake in this. But I also don’t feel like I’ve lost anything because Marvel movies exist, nor do I see how Marvel is responsible for producing all the movies stars in the world to go on to star in period dramas, nor do I see that Quentin Tarantino has produced any “movie stars” either, so…
Samuel L Jackson and Uma Thurman. In this day and age where movie tickets cost a fortune and it’s more convenient to stream, there are few actors who can get people to the theatres on name alone, however if they are household names and can be seen plastered across billboards and magazines selling fancy watches, designer clothes and perfumes then they are most definitely a movie star.
It strikes me as untrue that Jackson and Thurman weren’t on their rise to stardom prior to hooking up with Tarantino. I’d actually argue that they were already movie stars.
Hell, no! Samuel L Jackson had been a jobbing actor for 20 years at that point. His biggest roles to date had been a small background part in Jurassic Park and playing the Danny Glover part in the great but not exactly massively successful, National Lampoon’s Loaded Weapon. He was in no way a household name.
Uma Thurman was only known for ‘Even Cowgirls Get The Blues’ – pretty much the textbook definition of a small indie film and playing Maid Marion in the ‘other’ (cheaper and less successful) Robin Hood film of 1991. Again, in no way could she ever have been considered a household name at that time.
Star power used to be a thing and have value. Studios still rely on this trick – from the director of BOB or the producer of OBLAW – to shorthand their marketing and generate interest. “If it has that person or evokes the feeling of the thing I like then I should want to see it!Problem is though, do I want to see the next Chris Hemsworth movie? No, not when there hasn’t been a single one outside of Cabin in the Woods – made before but released after Thor – that I’ve enjoyed. Do I want to see Chris Pratt in anything without a park and recreation? Absofucklutely I do not.I’ve heard Tom Cruise called the last true movie star because he’s about the only guy where you say “Tom Cruise is in…” and you know what you’re getting and you know it’ll be fun as hell. Maybe the Rock is the same way?Well, whatever… I think the point he’s making is really “nobody says ‘oh this actor is in it? That’s all I need to know to be interested!’” anymore. If a movie looks like garbage, has a bad script, or is boring, who cares who the cast is.
I mean, I guess, except that we don’t have any evidence of that besides how Quentin Tarantino feels and how you feel. You can damn well bet people are seeing the new Willy Wonka because Timothee Chalamet is in it. I don’t know if people will see Mario because Chris Pratt is in it, but that’s 100% why he was cast. As for Chris Hemsworth, I liked him in Star Trek. And maybe I wouldn’t go out of my way to see Chris Hemsworth, but I’d go out of my way to see Chris Evans. I guess what I’m saying is “I wouldn’t see a Chris Hemsworth movie” isn’t evidence that there are no movie stars.
This is Chalamet erasure.
Exactly.
Tarantino has always been an odd duck but bare in mind that these guys don’t view movies in the same way that either you or I do.
As Yoda the Pesky Elf responded to you, he’s not entirely wrong about there being a lack of stars. Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney/Marvel recast the Avengers tomorrow.
But there’s not a lack of movie stars? That just not true. Timothee Chalamet. Zendaya. Florence Pugh. Tom Holland. Margot Robbie. Those are movie stars. Just because there aren’t a lot of stars coming out of Marvel (which, I give you Tom Holland and Zendaya, and really also Chris Evans and inexplicably Chris Pratt), doesn’t mean movie stars don’t exist.
Thank you for that list of names, but can you say anyone is going to see those movies, specifically comic book movies, because these actors are in them? Has Tom Holland’s name carried other movies to box office success?
“but can you say anyone is going to see those movies, specifically comic book movies, because these actors are in them?”I mean, can you say anyone is not? No. It’s a moot question because neither you nor I know what’s going on in the heads of everyone in the moviegoing public.That said, yes, I would actually bet a fair bit of money that there are people in the world seeing movies strictly because Timothee Chalamet or Zendaya or Tom Holland is in them.
The movies playing at my local theater with my best guess at how they were pitched or why they were made are:
Wakanda Forever — Marvel sequelStrange World — A Disney original animated flick from one of their in-house directors. Could’ve originated with him or, in very general terms, from the studio.Glass Onion — Sequel to a popular filmDevotion — War hero movie, probably on the subject matterBones and All — Reteaming of an Oscar friendly actor/director pairingShe Said — Subject matter that was probably dominating the news cycle when it was pitched.The Menu — Probably mostly on Joy. At the very least, it doesn’t get made on the same budget without a comparable lead actress with some cache in the same genre.Spirited — Ferrell/ReynoldsBanshees of Inisherin — Oscar friendly director reteaming with cult classic co-starsTar — BlanchettBlack Adam — DC sequelTicket to Paradise — Roberts/ClooneyLyle, Lyle Crocodile — Classic children’s book adaptationThat seems like a reasonably healthy mix to me. I get that the budgets are stacked more behind the already successful IP, but that’s always been true. I think you can make a reasonable case that it’s slightly moreso now, but there was never a time when a psychological character piece about a lesbian classical conductor was going to get $100 million. The fact that it was even released outside of arthouse theaters likely wouldn’t have happened before the last decade or so. It’s not that I think Tarantino has no point, but I guess I just find it kinda dull. There is so much interesting stuff happening that “Marvel movies get a lot of money” seems both an unavoidable part of how movies are funded and a bit overblown as a problem.
Personally, I’m happy enough to see the end of the era of the “movie star”. It always seemed to me to lead to lazy casting, like, “Oh, the main character is a decent, hard-working man? Tom Hanks, end of discussion.” It’s why I’ve always appreciated character actors more than leading men and women. JK Simmons is a fantastic actor, but you never know what he’s going to do next. He could be a sad-sack government stooge or an egomaniacal jazz conductor. Or a yellow M&M.
Agree.
Yep, that Robert Downey Jr guy isn’t a movie star.
the weak link from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang?
He was a star before! And he squandered his entire comeback on Marvel
His Marvel come back literally made him millions and gave him the clout to make passion projects like The Judge and Doolittle. Those squandered his comeback but he’s still working and doing fineAnd he’s probably one of the most recognizable actors in the world because of his Marvel run. Sure he was a star before but Marvel made him a Movie Star
Passion projects like that Disney CGI fest called Dolitte, huh?Um, k.
this is just untrue. it gave him a new career as a ‘marvel star’ but he can’t open a movie and noone else from the mcu can, by design.
“His Marvel come back literally made him millions and gave him the clout to make passion projects like The Judge and Doolittle.”Read that again. Nobody won here except the people who make a cut off his earnings.
also just ‘during the 11 year period he played tony stark in 10 movies he was able to take advantage of that juice and get 2 whole movies made’ is such a funny point.
Eh, nvm.
Doolittle was a passion project?
Sorry, Doolittle was a “passion project”??
Yeah it was. RDJ got that piece of shit made
Jesus Christ
Yeah, but before he was in things like Restoration (a great movie about the reign of Charles II, by far the best of the Charles) and was in Ian McKellan’s weird but brilliant version of Richard III set in a vaguely Fascist 1930s Britain. Things like Doolittle and The Judge may not be Marvel movies, but if those are “passion projects” then he needs more passion because a crappy children’s movie and a mediocre melodrama aren’t things worth being passionate about.
But the point is that Robert Downey Jr. isn’t the star; Iron Man is. If RDJ were the star, those two movies you just mentioned wouldn’t have disappointed at the box office. The only time audiences show up to see any of these Marvel stars are when they’re playing Marvel characters.
When is the last time a movie was a hit based on his name?Go head, I’ll wait.
He kinda’ isn’t. Since the first Iron Man he’s branched off and headlined a few movie star vehicles here and there but really hasn’t had anything hit the pop culture zeitgeist in the same way, well, Iron Man did. Doolittle, for example, relied heavily on his movie stardom and died on arrival. He reminds me a lot of the Russo Brothers. They made these massively successful, incredibly high-grossing movies, putting them on track to become the next James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. But their non-Marvel movies have just fizzled out for the most part.Of course Downey is still “fine.” He has money and I’m assuming Marvel would be happy to have him back as Iron Man any time in the event he loses his money. But I would argue that to be a movie star, you gotta put the butts in the seats.
Downey gave an interview about this once. The gist was, “Fuck your art. I’m done doing movies where I have to fund the catering budget myself. Give me money. More money. And fuck you.”
Not every actor is an artist longing to do movies for $900,000 that 12 people see.
Yeah, he’s literally exactly what Tarantino is talking about. He’s a star because he plays Iron Man. He’s not a star for playing Doolittle or Sherlock Holmes. We just think he’s a star the same way we thought Brad Pitt was a star- a very good character actor who happens to have A-list movie star looks and was in some huge movies but can’t ever really open their own movies. What’s Downey’s biggest movie post- or even pre-Iron Man?I’d say the closest MCU actor that comes close to breaking the mold (outside recent additions like Angelina Jolie or Charlize) is ScarJo. But even with her I’m struggling to think of her last big non-MCU film/role.
I’d say the closest MCU actor that comes close to breaking the mold (outside recent additions like Angelina Jolie or Charlize) is ScarJo. But even with her I’m struggling to think of her last big non-MCU film/role.To answer that question, Lucy and Ghost in the Shell.
And for RDJ, the Sherlock movies did well financially, but they’re prior IP (and he did those after Iron Man boosted his image), and Dolittle was a complete and utter bomb, especially considering how much it cost ($175m, which was more than Iron Man).
Also, Brad Pitt was always a much bigger star than RDJ. While her certainly wasn’t on the level of Tom Cruise or Will Smith, he was definitely in that next-tier of A-list (think George Clooney, Denzel Washington, or Leonardo DiCaprio) who could open solo films with more modest budgets, but not necessarily expensive blockbusters outside of ensemble films.For example, Pitt’s biggest solo movie during his earlier years was Troy, which did nearly $500m at the global box office back in 2004. That’s really good when you consider that it did better globally than Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), and Alexander (2004). His highest grossing movie ever is World War Z, which did $540m worldwide. Those numbers are really good for either solo works which are either non-prior IP (Troy) or from a somewhat popular IP but not a cultural phenomenon (World War Z, a novel).
I get that financially, Pitt was pretty bankable, but those movies weren’t actually very good (though for some reason I ALWAYS watched Troy whenever it was on TV.) But he’s basically William H. Macy with model looks. he’s the absolute best #2 star you could ask for in your film. It’s just weird that he’s an A+ list star but he’s not really a leading man.
Pitt, for what its worth, doesn’t really take a lot of those prototypical roles that I believe you’re thinking about. Outside of his big tentpole movies, he’s taking roles which are either adaptations of an existing work, or are being written by a writer/director known for great shit (Moneyball, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood, 12 Monkeys, Fight Club, Se7en, The Assassination of Jesse James). In that respect, he’s far more similar to George Clooney than Tom Cruise, but much of that can be explained by Tom being around longer and coming into movie stardom in a decade (the 1980s) that had many more movies structured around a singular lead actor that would be expected to carry most of the film. Clooney went from ER to Batman & Robin and Out & Sight, the former of which bombed and the latter is a cult classic. Pitt was a pretty boy who got squeezed between the action stars of the 80s and early-90s, and the rise of the comic book movie starting in the late-90s, early-2000s. He was too young to star in the 80s blockbusters, and was too old and arguably too famous to get the lead in the initial spate of comic book films in the 2000s (notice how none of the lead roles in either the Spiderman trilogy, X-Men trilogy, or the two Fantastic Four movies went to A+ list performers).
So, I certainly get why you see Brad as being a perfect #2, but I truly think its because his career came to be in the nebulous period of the 1990s where you either already had to be a big-name star from the 1980s, or you had to find a niche that took advantage of your specific sort of presentation (the actor that comes to mind is the feel-good everyman stylings of Tom Hanks). The one notable exception is Will Smith, but the argument there is that he filled a very specific niche that simply wasn’t present in the 1980s in a meaningful financial way (that is, the black action star who could also do comedy; Eddie Murphy was far more comedy than action, and one need only look how poorly Beverly Hills Cop 3 did in 1994, but how successful Bad Boys was the following year).
Think about this, who were the biggest name actors by 1999? Of the 1980s constabulary, Stallone was a non-entity, Schwarzenegger was a becoming less of a factor, and Willis was doing M. Night thrillers and looked as though his days as John McClane were long-gone. Tom Cruise was arguably the biggest name (and had a big franchise to buoy that in Mission Impossible), Will Smith hadn’t made an error in roughly 5 years of being a leading man (although he’d choose Wild Wild West over The Matrix), Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington were seen as the best actors of the bunch and thus had that niche pretty much filled no matter what type of dramatic role you needed to fill, George Clooney would finally get out from under the stink of Batman & Robin with Ocean’s Eleven, and DiCaprio was still seen as the young hot guy from Titanic and Romeo + Juliet. Where did that leave room for Brad Pitt? We saw his raw talent in 12 Monkeys and Se7en, but those ran contrary to his physical appearance and were always going to do less-than-blockbuster numbers. He hadn’t done a big-time action role yet, but there’s a good chance he wasn’t viewed as the top choice for one of those. And, when it came to rom coms, he might’ve suffered from being too good looking for many of the common rom-com tropes to be believable (with Pitt being in his 30s by the end of the decade, the assumption in a rom-com would be that Pitt’s character, solely based on his looks, either has a major set of personality flaws, or he’s secretly gay).
Considering just how successful he is, and for how long he’s been successful, it’s interesting to realize that had Pitt been born just a little bit earlier, or a little bit later, he’d arguably be a much bigger star than he is, simply due to the opportunities he’d be afforded that he wasn’t due to the time period in which he got into acting, and the shifting of cinematic tastes in Hollywood and from us consumers.
Oh shit, I forgot about the Sherlock Holmes movies. The first one was pretty successful, and I think Robert Downey Jr. can take a lot of credit for that. It was also over a decade ago, and I don’t remember how well the second one did, so.
Those Sherlock Holmes films were incredibly popular, I think the idea that they didn’t contribute to his stardom is incredibly suspect.I don’t think people are misreading Tarantino, I just think his point is just pretty vague mumbo-jumbo word salad that anyone can use to make their side right.
I’d argue that Robert Downey Jr. is the one true actor who the MCU turned into a Star. I don’t really think his resume needs to run beyond his tenure as Iron Man. Like, back when the first Iron Man came out did you think a decade later you’d be seeing the same character and actor fighting in outer space unironically? He put in a lot of work as Iron Man as is rightfully the MCU’s biggest star.
The MCU’s biggest star? Sure. A *movie star* – someone that can guarantee a certain amount of box office revenue simply because he’s on the poster? I’m not so sure. Doolittle tested his movie star creds and they failed miserably.
Has anyone ever guaranteed box office? Tom Cruise has had flops. Will Smith (pre-slap) has had flops. The Rock has had flops. Tom Hanks has had flops. Harrison Ford has had flops.An argument could be made that being able to reference Dolittle (a crappy film from all the way back before the pandemic hit, that relatively few people saw and even fewer liked) and have people know what you’re talking about shows that Downey Jr’s star power has had an impact. I mean, it only made $251m worldwide, but do you think it would’ve done that much business with, say, Jeffrey Dean Morgan in the lead role?
“Guarantee” maybe isn’t the right word, but their names were considered safe investments. And people can certainly lose movie star status while remaining A-listers, which I think is the case for Will Smith, Tom Hanks, and yes, Robert Downey Jr.
Agreed.
The reality is that none of the major Marvel stars, save for perhaps Scarlett (and even that’s tenuous, since her biggest non-Marvel roles have come from Ghost in the Shell, which is a prior IP, and Lucy, which has the ingrained Luc Besson fanbase) have really opened a solo movie to movie-star level success.
Granted, some of that can be blamed by, as QT says, the “Marvel-lization” of filmmaking, but I think a lot of it has to do with…movies in general being less popular as a medium. Prestige TV has really taken off, and I think the elephant in the room is video gaming. The days of a movie star, from solely movies, being a major cultural figure doesn’t really figure into a world where video games are the most valuable entertainment IPs in the world, and where people like PewDiePie, Mr. Beast, the Paul Brothers, and the Kardashians have more touch and influence that the stars of $300m+ blockbusters.
That being said, I think you can easily make an actor into a true movie star by simply giving them the right vehicle to do it. Perfect example for this modern era: Keanu Reeves (ironically enough). After the 3 Matrix movies, his later films didn’t do all that well, and he essentially disappeared until John Wick, an entirely new IP and not from a major studio. Sure, he was a far bigger name than most of the Marvel actors, but I do think he’s a far bigger “movie star” now than he was during the Matrix years, and he’s certainly bigger now than the roughly 12 years he spent in the wilderness between the Matrix and John Wick.
The other issue you have with the Marvel-lization preventing movie stars is that Disney doesn’t allow for directors with very specific and readily identifiable idiosyncracies to really run wild with their work, and for the few that do (say Taika and Raimi), they’re still constrained by Disney parameters and the strength of the script (of which Love & Thunder and Multiverse of Madness had terrible ones). Many of the movie stars get big by working with the same directors over and over again, and develop a symbiotic relationship that allows both parties to reach their biggest heights by extracting the best out of one another. That’s really hard to do in Marvel movies which can easily devolve into a sterile $250m+ ensemble film where you don’t really get to stretch your legs.
RDJ was fortunate that he was playing a 2nd-tier Marvel character well before the MCU was a juggernaut. Edward Norton, who was far more popular in 2007-2008, was saddled with a much more popular but more difficult character to play, and because of his tendency to exercise more control over the script and directing than most actors, he got the boot, The Incredible Hulk film is nearly forgotten, and now Mark Ruffalo is stuck in limbo because they can’t find a screenwriter who can write a good Hulk movie that won’t be a massive ensemble piece. RDJ? Carried the MCU into the stratosphere and made an absurd amount of money doing it. But even RDJ can’t open a solo movie that isn’t a prior IP (his biggest non-MCU movies since Iron Man were the two Sherlock films, and his Dr. Dolittle movie was hot trash that bombed).
That being said, I think you can easily make an actor into a true movie star by simply giving them the right vehicle to do it. Perfect example for this modern era: Keanu Reeves (ironically enough). After the 3 Matrix movies, his later films didn’t do all that well, and he essentially disappeared until John Wick, an entirely new IP and not from a major studio. Sure, he was a far bigger name than most of the Marvel actors, but I do think he’s a far bigger “movie star” now than he was during the Matrix years, and he’s certainly bigger now than the roughly 12 years he spent in the wilderness between the Matrix and John Wick.I agree with everything you said, although I don’t think it’s right to say that John Wick “made” Keanu Reeves a movie star, so much as it revitalized his previous movie star status. I also think people tend to forget that Keanu Reeves was a movie star *before* The Matrix. He was considered a suitable replacement for Will Smith (post-Independence Day, Bad Boys, Men In Black) after he turned the part of Neo down after all. So I agree that Keanu Reeves is a bigger star now than during the Matrix years and certainly the years after the trilogy ended, but I’m not sure he’s as big a star as in the 90’s. I’ve also wondered if he’s more Patron Saint of the Internet (see also: Murray, Bill) than movie star but I’m not ready to release my findings on that research at this time.
He was certainly a movie star, but even after The Matrix trilogy, he wasn’t nearly at the level of Will Smith or Tom Cruise (or, down a tier in terms of box office, DiCaprio’s, Pitt’s, Washington’s, or Clooney’s). You also have to remember that The Matrix becoming the cultural and cinematic phenomenon it became wasn’t at all expected, and if it had failed, Keanu would’ve been resting on the antiquated Bill & Ted movies, Speed, and The Devil’s Advocate. Even with the success of the latter two, calling him a movie star on the level that he is now is a bit of a stretch (and, let’s be honest, he was terrible in The Devil’s Advocate and Sandra Bullock carried him in Speed).
Also, given just how long the original Matrix trilogy released, there’s an entire generation of teenagers who didn’t grow up with that movie, nor witnessed the significance it had on media in general, and undoubtedly associated Keanu with John Wick and Cyberpunk than anything related to Matrix (and Resurrections certainly doesn’t help in that regard). Lastly, John Wick has consistently done better at the box office with each subsequent release, which is clear evidence of greater cultural and consumer relevance that’s increasing over time.
Yeah, I already agreed that he’s a bigger star now than in the years following The Matrix. Although I don’t know if the John Wick movies doing better at the box office with each release is a testament to Keanu or the Wick franchise itself. I think what would truly test Reeves’ movie stardom is if he headlined another original movie.
reeves was also blacklisted for a decade.
By Fox for turning down Speed 2. He did the Matrix trilogy during that decade. Not appearing in Speed 2 probably only helped his career.
They aren’t just doing better, they’ve basically doubled their worldwide box office with each release, which is something you tend to not see with movies that are new IPs. That success has led to the development of a TV spin-off, so that’ll be another test to see if the success of the franchise is due to the presence of Keanu, or the nature of the movies themselves.
The real test is with the increasing budgets that the John Wick films have had. The first was $20m, the second was $40m, and the third was $75m. With the third, your getting into a range is actually a bit of a no-mans land that many studios and producers don’t want to fall in. It’s a significantly higher than a barebones indie picture that you can easily make money on without a wide release, but significantly lower than a summer blockbuster where you expect to sell out the opening weekend(s) and take a major revenue from the theaters. Yet it made over 4x its budget worldwide, which is a really, really good sign (in fact, every movie in the series has been in that 4x revenue multiplier).
Keanu Reeves was A-List for sure back in the early 90’s. Point Break and Speed were absolutely huge hits and while Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a bit of a dud critically it was still a massively hyped movie and he was cast in one of the lead roles precisely because he was hot property at the time.
You’re being too generous here, and your timeline is a bit muddled.
Keanu was already cast in Dracula before Point Break was released (and Coppola himself said that he casted Keanu because of his looks, not because of Point Break or anything else; and, again, Keanu wasn’t the first choice; Christian Slater turned down the offer), and Point Break didn’t even do $100m worldwide (so not a huge hit by any stretch). Speed was undoubtedly a huge hit, but Keanu also wasn’t the first choice and arguably all of the actors considered before Keanu were bigger stars at the time (namely Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, and Wesley Snipes; Stephen Baldwin was actually the first choice, which shows far down Keanu was).
Honestly, to be considered A-list, you have to be the main draw for audience members to see a movie. Think to yourself, if you lived in the 90s, when there was a time when you said, “You know, I wonder when Keanu’s next movie is gonna come out?” He hit absolute gold with Speed, but I truly think Speed was one of those movies that you could’ve slotted many different performers into the lead role and it would’ve still be successful due to the high concept nature being particularly enthralling (as noticed by the slew of derivatives released after it, the Die Hard effect repackaged for the mid-90s).
And Keanu was a big draw. He became a household name in the early 90’s – and a name that became a running gag amongst British comedians in at the time who loved to make jokes about the supposed trend of single mums in rough, working-class housing estates all naming their boys ‘Keanu’. Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Hanks may have been bigger but it’s not a zero-sum game. The ‘A-List’ contains a lot of names and isn’t just determined on box-office success alone. To be considered A-list means that an actor will be the subject of gossip rag front covers, might be the face for fancy advertising campaigns and frequently targeted for red carpet interviews. It means that studios will be happy to cast them as the leads in movies that will open theatrically and who they will base much of their marketing around. Whether those movies are successful or not is another story but the fact that the studios are willing to take those gambles, means that the actor can be considered at that point ‘A-List’ and Reeves was most definitely A-List at that point.
Cumberbatch?
The point though is that when you see Robert Downey Jr in a non-Marvel movie you never say “hey it’s Tony Stark!” You always say “hey look it’s RDJ.” Whereas with some of the other actors when they pop-up elsewhere you think “hey it’s Thor!”
I think the only thing people say, “Hey look it’s RDJ” as opposed to Iron Man is that Robert Downey Jr. is famous enough that most people know his real name. Which makes sense because he’s been a famous actor since the 80’s (well, on-and-off). Movie stars are actors that are not only famous, but are reliable moneymakers. That is, even if they’re in a movie based on an original IP with a no-name director and few other recognizable actors, their name alone on the poster is enough to insure that it will make enough money at the box office to recoup the investment.(Thor is probably a terrible example too. Most people know the name “Chris Hemsworth”).
Hemsworth played James Hunt perfectly in ‘Rush’ and at no point did I ever mistake him for the God of Thunder.
I mean, they literally design these movies so that the stars are replaceable.
I don’t know why people always deliberately misread criticisms of Marvel. Every movie star (or b-lister) who is in Marvel was a star before they joined Marvel. Can you name one movie star Marvel created? Tom Holland is the closest thing they have to a star and he’s absolutely not a A-lister.
Tom Hiddleston was decidedly not a star (at least in the US) before he played Loki, and while he can’t open a solo, non-prior IP movie, he certainly wasn’t a big name before he got the role.
Hell, his most famous US-based role was playing F. Scott Fitzgerald in Midnight in Paris, and that was released the same year as the first Thor movie. So while I can’t say that he wasn’t a star (because I’m not familiar with any of his work in the UK), it would be a bold-faced lie to say that he was a star in the US before Thor.
And for what it’s worth, throw Chris Hemsworth in there as well. Proof he wasn’t a star (again, in the US)? They only paid him $150k for the lead role. Scarlett Johansson got $400k for her secondary role in Iron Man 2, and RDJ got $500k for Iron Man, and this was primarily because of the fact that they didn’t know whether the movie would be successful or not, so didn’t want to break the bank on an actor they were unsure about (due to his criminal and drug history). Hell, even Chris Evans got a cool $1m for Captain America.
Chris Pratt definitely wasn’t a star before Guardians of the Galaxy and though I’m not a huge fan of his I think he’s arguably a star now (or at least; he headlines a lot of movies).I think Chris Hemsworth is certainly a B-lister who was basically a nobody before Thor.Honestly, the big reason there are so few “nobodies” that are made a star by the Marvel machine is because basically starting with Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange they largely started hiring known actors for their big characters. They hit a point where they largely didn’t need to hire nobodies because they could afford to hire known quantities. Friggin’ Paul Rudd is about to headline a third superhero film for some reason. Is there any reason Paul Rudd – well-known comedic actor and sometimes rom-com star – should be in that role except that Marvel knew people recognized him and had the money to throw at him?
Chris Hemsworth.I’d also argue Chris Evans as the only notable movies he had on his resume before Captain America, were the Fantastic Four films and while we’re on the subject of non-MCU Marvel films, Hugh Jackman is another virtual no one who became an A-Lister off the back of a Marvel IP
Neither is that Samuel L Jackson fellow, apparently.
Marvel’s obvious reluctant to recast the major roles suggests it’s at least a combination of actor and character here. They’re not making Eternals movies and having a 54-year-old co-starring a major superhero pic because they think those are the ideal approaches; they’re doing it because they’re not sure audiences will embrace any other actors as Iron Man or Wolverine in the same way.
“Captain America is the star. Or Thor is the star.”
I mean…that’s the whole point of the Marvel experiment, right? It’s not that you’re excited to see RDJ and Chris Evans together; you’re excited to see Iron Man and Captain America together.
it’s 100% the point and you can even chart this as recently as people being mad they didn’t just recast t’challa when boseman died.
^ This is a VERY good point.
Y’all sure are making a big meal out of Tarantino this week. What’s up with that?
They wrung all the mileage they could out of Matthew Perry’s book.
Just wait until it’s announced that Tarantino will be making Don’t Worry Darling 2 starring Matthew Perry.
The effect on the Internet would make the Taylor Swift Ticketmaster thing look minor.
But who is Harry Styles going to spit on this time?
He’s been interviewing all over recently. I think he’s trying to build interest in that mystery series he’s about to make.
“This pop culture news site sure is talking about the pop culture figures in the zeitgeist lately, and I, as a dumb person, find that extremely confusing!”
“They’re the only things that seem to generate any kind of excitement
amongst a fan base or even for the studio making them. That’s what
they’re excited about. And so it’s just the fact that they are the
entire representation of this era of movies right now. There’s not
really much room for anything else. That’s my problem.”
This is the correct take.
But have you considered the fact that I, personally, like these movies, and that saying anything bad about them is literal violence?
My biggest (only?) problem with People Having Opinions I Don’t Have To Agree With is that when you remove the handful of Marvel films from each year, you still have hundreds of domestic and foriegn films that you can dig through, admire, take “stars” from…Marvel, or even the comic book subgenre as a whole, does not make up a large percentage of films. If you don’t like them, there’s so much else to enjoy that one wonders why they even care.Of my favorite films of 2022 (so far), THE BATMAN is the only one that fits this category. I have so many small, quiet, intimate dramas (often from faraway lands) that you’d think I was a stuck-up critic.
If Tarantino hates that people love Cap and Thor more than the actors playing them, USA’s “Characters Welcome” era most have drove him nuts.
“ok here’s the thing about Monk. Fuck Monk.” -QT, at some point, probably
There’s a ton of legit Movie Stars who were legit before their MCU tenure though. Chief among them being Tarantino’s good buddy Samuel L Jackson. Johansson already had Oscar noms before she started. RDJ had a whole career. Paltrow, Portman, Cheadle… Olsen, Ruffalo, and Larson all had indie bonafides… Cumberbatch was already famous in UK and abroad for Sherlock… the villains and supporting are typically a murderers row of legacy or current Movie Stars in for a one-and-done (Crowe, Bale, Keaton, Brolin, Spader, Russell, Gyllenhal, Douglas, Bridges, Close, Blanchett, Goldblum, Pfieffer, Hopkins)… even if his point is that it doesn’t make relative unknowns “movie stars”, I don’t necessarily agree. Tom Holland and Zendaya, for instance. Chris Pratt, for another. Meh.
his point is that people go to see the characters, not the actors, and the fame the actors get from being those characters doesn’t translate to help other movies they may do.for example, yes chris evans is a huge star for being captain america, but general audience aren’t going to see ‘chris evans movies’. it’s the difference between being famous and being someone that can generate box office on their name alone.he’s not saying ‘the people who star in marvel movies aren’t movie stars’ as much as he’s saying ‘the characters are more important than anyone who could ever play them’
But even so, it’s still not entirely true. Holland is bankable enough as a result of Spidey that he can open dreck like Uncharted at #1. Zendaya went from MJ to multiple Emmys. I mean, most Movie Stars are born of multiple iconic characters in a short period of time anyway, or an extended stint in a single role – it almost never comes from a single role. Pratt isn’t a star because of GOTG alone – it’s also Jurassic, and LEGO Emmet, and Parks and Rec, and so on. Anyway. Rambles.
I mean… Uncharted was just dumped into theaters in the February dead zone, and it also had Wahlberg, who whatever you think of him still has a good deal of box office draw. Of all the MCU people, I wouldn’t really hold Tom Holland up as a guy to break out of the MCU mold.
Plus Uncharted is based on a huge video game series with an inbuilt fanbase. And I don’t think that can be forgotten about if we are talking Tom Holland as a ‘movie star.’
Because that brand recognition was a huge part of selling the movie- how would Holland go at the box office carrying something that doesn’t have an inbuilt fanbase? (It would’ve been interesting to see how Chaos Walking went in non covid times.)
Pratt’s not the best example, GOTG nor Jurassic World made him a star, those projects elevated him but he got most of what he currently has thanks to Parks and Recreation. Which in heinsight is wild and good for him.
That’s sort of like saying John Travolta got most of his fame from Welcome Back Kotter.
Zendaya in Spiderman is entirely incidental in her Emmy wins. That you would even try to connect the two is ridiculous. She was a star in her own right (and a *producer*) before Homecoming was even a twinkle in the MCU/Sony eye.
She’s still pretty bland
Ah, another moment to recommend “Not Another Teen Movie”. I was genuinely a Chris Evans fan before Captain America (yes he did exist before that). He even did a movie with ScarJo called “The Perfect Score” well before the MCU days.
“his point is that people go to see the characters, not the actors“Which is a bad thing?
it can be considered good or bad depending on who you are and the opinions you hold. either way, it’s a ‘thing’.
I mean, isn’t Chris Hemsworth’s whole career due to Thor? And yes totally Holland.
For a moment there I thought the title was “Quentin Tarantino has a new Marvel option”, which would have been interesting.
But just another opinion about Marvel… wateva
This is the dumbest thing I’ve heard come out of Tarantino’s mouth since the “n-word.”
Why do so many people rush in to defend Disney, the largest media corporation in history, when someone mildly insults their output?As much of a blowhard as Tarantino typically is, he’s right: massive studios controlling expensive IP have dominated the cinematic landscape. In the past (including the 90’s, when he rose to fame), particular actors or directors were the heavies who dictated what movies would be huge. Spielberg or Cameron, Will Smith or Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise. The movies themselves were often original and unknown stories, but the people in front or behind the camera were the sell.This still happens *sometimes*, but typically? It’s Marvel’s new movie, a new Harry Potter thing. The actors or directors involved are often treated expendably, given 10+ picture deals that lock them in at a low rate or quietly fired during sequel development, because ultimately it’s the IP that matters more than any one person executing it. Sure, Chris Hemsworth or whoever is massively famous after the MCU, but the next non-MCU thing he does (for Netflix, etc.) will be a footnote compared to the popularity and broad cultural saturation of, like, Thor 4: Beta Ray Billions.It’s not inherently bad that Marvel is such a big deal, but it does speak to a homogenized and hyper-corporate perspective on what movies can or should be made or marketed. It makes Hollywood less interesting.
With anything from Tarantino I think framing it in the context of the 90s is important. A lot of movies from the 90s were absolute shit, but there were definitely fewer franchise installments and a larger space for “major independents” to release low- or mid-budget movies at a profit. On the other hand, Miramax was one of the big players in that economy, so it’s hard to be all that nostalgic.
Can’t wait for Marvel people to twist this reasoned statement into a personal insult and drag this out for another year before Scorsese jumps in with a new banal comment to feed the furnace.
What else can we say about Tarantino to get his panties knotted up? He’s already hooked. He’s not walking away from the trolling, so just say whatever you want to get him riled up.
If I ever meet him:“My favorite movie of yours is True Romance.”“Actually, I didn’t direct that one, I only wrote it.”“I know.”
when will someone convince Tarantino to write a Punisher comic book mini series, out-of-canon? Have Frank interact with some of the folks in the Tarantino multiverse.
Hollywood did used to operate with stars that were bigger than their roles. And it could be terrible. They would have these big stars, and have multi-movie contracts, so they would be horribly miscast in the movie itself because the studio just wanted the big name. That’s why you get John Wayne as Genghis Khan. Some of them weren’t even very good actors in the first place. And this was in “the Golden Age of Hollywood.”
We don’t need Movie Stars. Secondly, this is a guy who admitted that he knew Weinstein was sexually assaulting women and “regretted” not “doing more”. I don’t know why he still has a voice and a critical, judgmental voice at that.
I mean, he’s not wrong. Captain Marvel might’ve actually ruined Brie Larson’s career for a while.
My formative years were 1999-2005ish, a period where our movie stars were, I’d argue, worse than they’ve ever been at any point in history. Let the concept die, if it means nobody is gonna try to convince my of the raw charisma and talent of Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon again.
The only movie star I can really think of is The Rock— but is the downfall of the “movie star” a result of Marvel movies or simply the other ways people consume media and make people famous? TikTok stars and social media influencers and Twitch streamers all seem to have become the next generation of famous people with the youth. Times change, pop culture evolves and all that— I don’t really think you can blame Disney for this one.People watch movies at home nowadays, or there are films released directly on streaming platforms where it’s just so much more convenient then going to see a movie at a theatre. I, personally, am not going to the theatre to see prestige drama when my television works just as well and looks just as good as seeing the film in the theatre. If I’m going to the cinema I’m going to want to see visual spectacle, not necessarily a cogent and good film because I can do that in the comfort of my home without missing anything.
It just feels like “movie stars” in the sense that they’re actors whose movies you’ll see just because that person is in them, or actors who make movies better just by being in them just aren’t ever going to be especially common. I’m not sure if most of these people in comic movies were doing other movies that they’d really be *stars*.
Movie stars are overrated. Thanks Marvel for finally doing us a solid.
Always worth mentioning that Disney (allegedly) threatened a movie theater into dropping one of his movies so that they could have a longer run for the Force Awakens.
What is this complaint? Lots of other movies are being made right now – for example, you can see Banshees of Inershin starring Colin Farrell, or She Said starring Zoe Kazan, or The Menu starring Anya Taylor Joy. These are movies for adults featuring movie stars. If QT made a new movie it’s make money, so what is he complaining about? Does he just not like it that Marvel films are popular? The actors from those movies have been in other things. Margot Robbie (Harley Quinn) was just in a David O Russel movie and now is making Babylon, a big, bombastic film about Hollywood. I’m so tired of this nonsensical complaint.
Yeah, this whole idea of “nothing but superheroes” hinges on a false idea. Marvel makes three or four movies a year at most. DC, maybe two. Not even enough for a weekly top ten.
And here I assumed he’d be griping about the lack of closeups on women’s feet.
Marvel is crap because the stories are crap. It’s just a fantastical threat defeated by fantastical creatures, every time. Which, really, isn’t much worse or better than “here’s history, but different!” with needless racism. Watch movies without special effects. That’s what I do.
I feel like Glass Onion, along with Knives Out, is a pretty solid counter to QT’s argument. The cast is at least half the point.