Tarantino suggests modern era tied for worst ever

[Mister Mets]

In a recent podcast, Quentin Tarantino said that the modern film era is one of the worst ever.

In a recent episode of his and Roger Avary’s The Video Archives Podcast, the Pulp Fiction director took aim at the films of today, as well as those from the 1980s and 1950s.

“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. Matched only by now, matched only by the current era!” he said.

However, Tarantino went on to say that the spate of poor material had given an edge to “the [films] that don’t conform, the ones that stand out from the pack”.

He's opposed to the current blockbusters, especially Marvel films, more because of their box office dominance than anything else. This probably connects to some different views he's shared (that film should have a unique identity, that directors are supposed to have personalities apparent in the movies, that it's fine for material to be very R-rated.)

Is he wrong? And if he's wrong, what era is obviously worse?

[babyblob]

I think it boils down to being a movie snob. A lot of these movies are making money hand over fist. Pretty sure a lot of the Marvel Movies did better at the box office then a lot of his.

At the end of the day the point of movies for Hollywood is to make moneys that sell. And they are doing a good job with that for the most part. Yes the art films and serious movies get talked about for Oscars and changing the landscape and being these ground breaking thought provoking movies that people like to feel good for watching. But at the end of the day it is the guilty pleasure movies that sell.

Most days when I want to be entertained I put on one of these bad era movies. There are days I want to watch serious cinema. 12 Angry Men greatest movie of all time. Key Largo best mobster movie. Schindler's List my thoughtful movie. And I enjoy them. But more often then not I am watching a goof ball comedy or super hero movie.

So really it is all about what the viewer likes. I doubt anyone is going to stop watching movies because of what Tarantino says.

[Kirby101]

I think for any era we can see a lot of movies that might have dominated the theaters at the time and say that was the worst. But then, when we look at the best movies from that era, we find some of the best made. Today is dominated by blockbusters, but there are some great movies being made as well.
Could you call a decade bad that included Marty, On the Waterfront, 12 Angry Men, the Searchers.......

[chicago_bastard]

Who cares what Tarantino has to say to promote his book? I have never heard a meaningful in-depth analysis from him, if he praises a movie he sounds like your typical Twitter fanboy.

Him counting the 50s among the worst movie decades fits that impression. The decade that was Hitchcock's best, saw Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa bringing out some of their finest works, not to mention countless masterpieces like Paths of Glory, Touch of Evil, Sunset Boulevard, All about Eve, High Noon, The Searchers, Twelve Angry Men, Tokyo Story, The Night of the Hunter, and so on. Guy should stick to commenting on grindhouse movies, that may be his area of expertise.

[HollowSage]

In a recent podcast, Quentin Tarantino said that the modern film era is one of the worst ever.



He's opposed to the current blockbusters, especially Marvel films, more because of their box office dominance than anything else. This probably connects to some different views he's shared (that film should have a unique identity, that directors are supposed to have personalities apparent in the movies, that it's fine for material to be very R-rated.)

Is he wrong? And if he's wrong, what era is obviously worse?

What are studios supposed to do? Make movies that people don’t want to go see? The audiences vote with their dollars and he’s basically saying forget them and listen to me.

No thanks.

[They Live]

Well Tarantino is absolutely correct. He is looking at one kind of consumer. The box-office consumer, but we are forgetting the people who would not pay, to those watching media banned, out-dated, or just not ( here is comes ) woke/blm/sjw/civil-rights-enough.

1950's was the reconstruction era. That being said many media was lost from then on.
1960's is where things got more interesting and creative.
1970's was perfection ( like the Internet before 2008 )
1980's was kinda meh.....
1990's was more of that meh.

You watch movies it should be a place where you make out with a girl, get down each other pants, and still is awesome. That kind of person still exist but the method of living is different. Like your alone with a pretty girl, in front of a tv. Why not put the moves on her. Then you could go with your kids on the weekends ( like my dad and mom did when we was young ). Honest to gosh most people watching movies nowadays falls into the

Mom and her stories.......fart category. As a dude I could go online and talk, and watch girls on web-cams for free. Then meet up with them and work on a project.

We talk about that consumer minded person. Honest to gosh everybody knows this already.

The problem is not the actors, or the want to see the movie but why are we going to travel 2.5 miles to see that movie. Those days going on the highway just to go to a complex in the middle of nowhere is over.

Everybody is a movie star nowadays. Why do I care who is in the movie. I have a real life. My life is not burning $20 to $40 dollars for one night to hang out with weirdos.

"Where are the men ?"

[Gaastra]

Did he just say 80s was one of the worst? A decade many see as one of the best eras for films?

Can't take him seriously at all with that comment. Guess ET, blade runner, raiders of the lost ark, color purple, my left foot, ghostbusters, little mermaid, who framed roger rabbit, and back to the future are some of the worst films of all time huh?

[godisawesome]

In a recent podcast, Quentin Tarantino said that the modern film era is one of the worst ever.



He's opposed to the current blockbusters, especially Marvel films, more because of their box office dominance than anything else. This probably connects to some different views he's shared (that film should have a unique identity, that directors are supposed to have personalities apparent in the movies, that it's fine for material to be very R-rated.)

Is he wrong? And if he's wrong, what era is obviously worse?

I despise any conviction in the auteur theory - not an analytical interest in it, mind you, but the idea that it’s always true or that it’s some ideal is bupkis.

I’ve also seen a lot of the crappy and popular movies of the past, and I don’t think there’s anyway to argue blockbusters in the modern era are somehow worse than other fads and franchises of the past.

In general, I think any athe to to declare one era superior to another beyond technical ability is stupid.

[Vakanai]

Look, I get the MCU fatigue to a degree, I do. But people love it and I still enjoy it all for it's forgettable popcorn action comedy fluff. We like what we like, and the only measure of true quality is whether we value it enough to see it. If most of us prefer blockbusters, then that means that they're higher quality to us than some artsy fartsy film such directors rather us be watching.

Besides this is Quentin "We need more buckets of blood" Tarantino we're talking about here - dude's talented but he's not exactly making Schindler's List or Casablanca.
Some of my favorite movies are from the modern era. The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Mr. Holmes, Shin Godzilla, Super, Batman: Under the Red Hood, Joker, Bubba Ho-tep, Hellboy, and yada yada yada a bunch of movies from this century I keep returning to. Horror has seen a resurgence, IT was a phenomenon. If you think the movies I like are trash that's fair, taste is subjective - but don't expect me to change my viewing habits to better suit what you think I should be watching. Life's short to be watching crap you're not into. I fell asleep trying to watch The Godfather and haven't returned to it since (God it's so long and boring). But I've probably seen more Scooby Doo movies than 99% of the posters here and will keep watching them because I honestly enjoy them. Life should be enjoyed, and films are one part of that enjoyment.

[ed2962]

What's interesting about this is that Tarantino isn't even really an art snob. Part of his image is that he's a guy that loves B-movies and cheesy Hollywood pap as much as he likes "quality" films. His distain for modern blockbusters comes across as grumpy old man-ism..."the junk that liked as a kid is inherently better than the junk that kids like today."

[They Live]

I believe what Tarintino is trying to say. Is actual films with regular people with regular lives that is interesting, exciting, and is not forced on to you.

Not a sci-fi
Not a cartoon
Not a Nostalgia and longing for another time or ideal way of living
Not some kind of experiment where you insert oddity.
Not special effects.

Tarantino is trying to say nothing that could not happen or is not happening. That is what he is trying to say.

....You could watch it and not feel anything controversial. Be like "Wow that was a nice experience and no suggestive content".

Not Product Placement
Not Propaganda
Not Suggestive content
Not unoriginal
Not something like a children book ( which is what most TV is or has become ), where every little detail is being described and the viewer sorta knows what is occurring without being introduced

[The Gold Stream]

i hope he trash talks his way into a marvel gig

[numberthirty]

I believe what Tarintino is trying to say. Is actual films with regular people with regular lives that is interesting, exciting, and is not forced on to you.

Not a sci-fi
Not a cartoon
Not a Nostalgia and longing for another time or ideal way of living
Not some kind of experiment where you insert oddity.
Not special effects.

Tarantino is trying to say nothing that could not happen or is not happening. That is what he is trying to say.

....You could watch it and not feel anything controversial. Be like "Wow that was a nice experience and no suggestive content".

Not Product Placement
Not Propaganda
Not Suggestive content
Not unoriginal
Not something like a children book ( which is what most TV is or has become ), where every little detail is being described and the viewer sorta knows what is occurring without being introduced

That is literally a central component of every single film that the guy has ever made.

So, no...

I don't really buy into that he is saying "Not..." that.

"That..." is his bread and butter.

[numberthirty]

I believe what Tarintino is trying to say. Is actual films with regular people with regular lives that is interesting, exciting, and is not forced on to you.

Not a sci-fi
Not a cartoon
Not a Nostalgia and longing for another time or ideal way of living
Not some kind of experiment where you insert oddity.
Not special effects.

Tarantino is trying to say nothing that could not happen or is not happening. That is what he is trying to say.

....You could watch it and not feel anything controversial. Be like "Wow that was a nice experience and no suggestive content".

Not Product Placement
Not Propaganda
Not Suggestive content
Not unoriginal
Not something like a children book ( which is what most TV is or has become ), where every little detail is being described and the viewer sorta knows what is occurring without being introduced

As for this...

The film Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood does just that.

The entire point of the film is to rework what actually happened as an experiment where an odd hitch is thrown into what actually took place.

So, yeah...

There is no way he is saying to avoid that. It was the entire game plane for a film that he made himself.

[Bruce Wayne]

I despise any conviction in the auteur theory - not an analytical interest in it, mind you, but the idea that it’s always true or that it’s some ideal is bupkis.

Auteur theory is basically Hollywood's Great Man Theory.