Tarantino suggests modern era tied for worst ever

[godisawesome]

I know that both he and Anthony Mackie have said that people don't go to a Marvel movie to see a movie star, they go to see the character. But the case could be made that by starring as a character in a comic book movie, it raises the profile of the actor so that the casual viewer will want to see them in other things, thus making a bigger star. Say someone goes to see Black Panther, and had never heard of Chadwick Boseman before. After seeing him in that, they could look for other movies he's done to see more of his work. Same could be said of Florence Pugh, who I don't think has ever gotten a bad review for anything she's been in. Even Robert Downey Jr.- after seeing him in Iron Man, fans could go back and watch him in Chaplin, or look forward to his next project (okay, maybe not Dr. Doolittle). Heck, for me Chris Evans became a major selling point to see Knives Out, just to see him in a non-Cap role. And their are actors now who really owe comic book movies for making their career's explode. Gal Gadot was in the Fast and the Furious movies, but she didn't really take off until she was cast as Wonder Woman. Jason Momoa was mainly a TV actor who was best known for either Game of Thrones or Stargate Atlantis; since he was cast as Aquaman, his career has really taken off.

As for if having a recognizable star helps or hinders- I suppose it depends on the actor and the role. People hated Ben Affleck as Batman (until they saw him). Robert Redford is a legit movie star, but was cast perfectly in The Winter Soldier. On the other end of the spectrum, though, is Arnold as Mr. Freeze. Great costume and make-up, but you could never suspend your disbelief and think that was Victor Fries on the screen. It was always Arnold in a refrigerator.

In a way, you could argue that superhero roles, especially successful ones, have become both the most reliable way to "crown" a modern movie star, and the best way to show that star's dynamic acting range, since they get more than one crack at the character and good comic book movies require letting characters grow and change a bit more than a regular character in a regular movie would.

The trade-off, of course, is that its not the same type of "the actor is the brand" that old school movie stars were - the character is a brand in its own right, and may even end up a bigger brand overall, which might trigger some insecurity for some actors... but I'd also argue the modern market has allowed far more actors to "play against type" if a major franchise casts them if they so desire. Evans is a key example of that, especially since it could be argued that Cap was a role that played against his original "type" of character, and now he can demonstrate his skill at both unrepentant scumbags like Ransom as well as other, more positive characters besides Cap.

This is what bugs me. Sure superhero films specifically MCU films dominate box office. But there are so many movies being made and distributed in different ways its impossible to even keep track. There are move movies coming out than ever. Its just most of them dont come out in the Movie theater format. I watched Disenchanted the other day. Was a straight to Disney Pause movie. Same with Hocus Pocus 2. Many of these movies just go right to streaming. And that's ok. Directors should love that more movies than ever are being made.

They may get distributed in a different manner. But If Tarantino went to Netflix, Or Hulu, or Apple, or Amazon or whatever they would hire him for a movie in two seconds.

I think this is comparable to the impact of social media on music - the proliferation of new distribution channels means that more artists can get into the entertainment marketplace and make a living in it, but it also means that there's more categorization and recognition of when something is "niche," as it's premise and quality has to attract and hold new audience members rather than just be released by a larger distributor who loves the project.

This has sort of ramped up the old "Is this particular film failing or being less popular a result of it being niche, or is it a result of bad populist artwork drowning out quality material?" argument.

Personally... I think that professional critics and artists are just as qualified as large, mainstream audiences to declare what a quality film is or isn't - in other words, they're not actually qualified at all for that role. And a real issue for me is when a professional artist or critic declares tropes or cliches from their preferred niche to be "superior" to mainstream pop culture landmark tropes or cliches - no, a tragic movie about a privileged white guy that subverts expectations does not automatically have more quality than a comedic adventure movie, and film teachers need to stop pretending that obscure French Cinema has some greater impact on society than it actually did by inspiring others to make better, more well-known films. In fact, it need sot be acknowledged that sometimes trying to appeal to a more niche "critical darling" style of film-making can actually create an even more shallow, more pandering movie (The Last Jedi) than a blockbuster crowd pleaser that actually has much more artistic merit in spite of being so "fan service-y" (The Force Awakens.).

Blockbuster Popcorn Movies and Award Bait films are merely the initial form a film takes when the creator doesn't really know if it can grow beyond its original targeted audience - and it should be acknowledged that if an Award Bait type of film has mainstream success (like Knives Out) or if a blockbuster has a larger and more permanent cultural impact (the Dark Knight), then they *both* surpassed their initial forms, not just the first.

[Ramsay Snow]

They may get distributed in a different manner. But If Tarantino went to Netflix, Or Hulu, or Apple, or Amazon or whatever they would hire him for a movie in two seconds.

Tarantino actually has something like that on the table. In a somewhat recent interview, he mentioned having a TV series in the works.

Isn't the mid to late 90s commonly seen as the worst era at least when it comes to Blockbusters, with the 80s doing much better in this regard?

The 90s were definitely pretty bad for films, Tarantino's just showing more of his bias. I say more of because he's extremely biased toward 70s films. This is the guy who thinks Dazed and Confused is one of the 10 greatest films of all-time......It has an interesting cast, and is an alright movie (I bought the Criterion Collection blu-ray release long ago), but that movie doesn't hit my top 50, lol. Tarantino loves that movie because it reminds him of his childhood. The 70s are his thing, which is fine.

'90s blockbusters are exactly why I started leaning more into indie and foreign movies at the time. I was so tired of seeing the same "movie stars" in the same terrible movies all the time.

Behind 90s blockbuster schlop like Ghost, Speed, The Bodyguard, Jerry Maguire, Armageddon, The Quick and the Dead, Forrest Gump, and Pretty Woman, we had solid American films like LA Confidential (one of my favorite movies of all-time), Good Will Hunting, Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, The Sixth Sense, Reservoir Dogs, The Shawshank Redemption, Silence of the Lambs, The Talented Mr Ripley, Malcolm X, 12 Monkeys, and Seven. Also Pulp Fiction, of course, which I'm not a big fan of, but have to acknowledge as being a great film due to various aspects of the movie.

[Frobisher]

For all the "Old man yells at clouds"-ness of this (and all the other minor comments in interviews that get amplified nowadays to pass as "News"), it occurs to me that I can't think of a single Tarantino film that doesn't feel like a stage play. They're extensively based around single-location scenes that are just people standing around talking at length - cinematography aside, they're often less cinematic and dynamic than the films of actual playwright Martin McDonnagh or even a Max Fischer production.

Not saying that makes them bad, it's just a peculiarity of a self-proclaimed cinephile who wrote scripts while working as a video store clerk, and almost certainly informed by the style of films he watched as a youth.

[Kirby101]

He does have dialog heavy set pieces, but dialog is one of his strengths. But really? Django, Hateful Eight, Once Upon a Time, Kill Bill not cinematic? Those were not "stage plays".

[Ramsay Snow]

He does have dialog heavy set pieces, but dialog is one of his strengths. But really? Django, Hateful Eight, Once Upon a Time, Kill Bill not cinematic? Those were not "stage plays".

He sometimes overdoes the dialog, though. Prime examples would be Pulp Fiction (especially the Bruce Willis bedroom scene) and Deathproof (diner scene with that New Zealand stuntwoman who's not a particularly good actress, which makes that heavy-dialog scene all the more painful).......Tarantino's somewhat similar to Kevin Smith, in that regard, although Smith's worse and doesn't have a fourth the talent of Tarantino.

[Kirby101]

He sometimes overdoes the dialog, though. Prime examples would be Pulp Fiction (especially the Bruce Willis bedroom scene) and Deathproof (diner scene with that New Zealand stuntwoman who's not a particularly good actress, which makes that heavy-dialog scene all the more painful).......Tarantino's somewhat similar to Kevin Smith, in that regard, although Smith's worse and doesn't have a fourth the talent of Tarantino.

That's a fair point. But to say he also isn't cinematic or his movies are stage plays just doesn't hold up.

[Relugus]

One of the worst trends in modern movies is referencing previous movies, the pop culture referencing and "member-berries" that infest many films these days.

Tarantino started that trend, his movies popularised the culture of irony, post-modernism, and pop culture references. Prior to Tarantino, films were largely contained in their own world and did not overtly callback to other films, if they did so it was in very subtle ways. After Pulp Fiction, other film-makers started ramming pop culture references and then memes into their films, often very cynically.

Tarantino's movies spend so much time referencing other movies that their merit as storytelling on their own merits is IMHO dubious. I think his movies will age badly in the coming decades.

We are, I think, now entering a post-post modern era, the age of irony that blossomed in the 90s is in its death throes, replaced by divisive populism with fascist undertones.

[Mister Mets]

One of the worst trends in modern movies is referencing previous movies, the pop culture referencing and "member-berries" that infest many films these days.

Tarantino started that trend, his movies popularised the culture of irony, post-modernism, and pop culture references. Prior to Tarantino, films were largely contained in their own world and did not overtly callback to other films, if they did so it was in very subtle ways. After Pulp Fiction, other film-makers started ramming pop culture references and then memes into their films, often very cynically.

Tarantino's movies spend so much time referencing other movies that their merit as storytelling on their own merits is IMHO dubious. I think his movies will age badly in the coming decades.

We are, I think, now entering a post-post modern era, the age of irony that blossomed in the 90s is in its death throes, replaced by divisive populism with fascist undertones.

In fairness to Tarantino, the guy who started a trend should not be blamed for copycats.

My favorite Spider-Man story is "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" and it should not be judged by mediocre follow-ups.