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.......

[Mister Mets]

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.......

When the AFI did its Top 100 in 1997, the 50s were the most represented decade, with twenty films, so there is definitely an argument that the really good stuff could compete with any era.

https://www.filmsite.org/afi100filmsA.html

I guess from his perspective, he wouldn't care for the period that's no longer considered the Golden Age of Hollywood before things get more daring in the mid to late 60s, when the influence of the French New Wave hits America.

There's a website I follow that tries to look at international acclaim, which would also determine world cinema. The 50s have roughly 140 films in the Top 1,000, which surpasses previous decades. Only the 60s and 70s do better according to that exhaustive analysis.

https://theyshootpictures.com/gf1000...ilms_table.php

[Mister Mets]

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?

I think it's more about weaker films than the good stuff. He seems to believe that bad stuff can diminish a reputation, which may be why he's big on the idea that he'll quit Hollywood after ten films.

He is intitled to his own opinion of course even if i roll my eyes at it. The guy who made kill bill a live action anime and a movie about vampire hookers can't talk about real in films, however.

It's not about genre. He obviously likes weird stuff. He's less interested in studios playing it safe, which does happen with major franchise films made for an international audience.

I think Tarantino would have been better to say (something I think he's already said before in the past): I really miss 70s cinema.

That's a view I can understand in a lot of ways without heaping hate at the 1950s and 80s cinema. For all the bad, there was also a lot of lasting cinema (globally) from those decades, as others as posted about.

I and probably others think American cinema in the 1960s wasn't so hot (early 60s was awful). So why did Tarantino leave that decade out? Steve McQueen alone can't save the 60s.

As far now, I definitely side with Tarantino a good bit. It's harder to defend Hollywood as it is right now, it really is. Our best blockbusters are relatively weak films. It's tough. Of course there's still some great films. But they're lower and lower budgeted and fewer see them. It feels like streaming shows have overtaken cinema in terms of boldness and quality. It's a tough time.

We may be overthinking a quick comment in trying to determine what he meant by not liking the 1950s.

He's a big fan of the French New Wave and various international movements. And even if you didn't care for the early 1960s in American film, you had the French New Wave, Fellini at his peak, Antonini at his peak, the Golden Age of Japanese cinema, and experimental works by the likes of Buñuel. In the late 60s, you get to spaghetti westerns and more adventurous Hollywood films (Kubrick, the counterculture, violent outlaw dramas, etc.)

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.

This isn't something he did to promote his book of film analysis. It came up in his podcast.

Rather than just complaining all these directors who have a problem with the industry today should do what Marvel did. A bunch of them should get together and start their own studio. Then make whatever movie they want to make and if it’s a hit then make more and so on and so on.

If Marvel can start a studio while on the verge of bankruptcy then four or five big name directors should be able to. Who knows. It might even work.

That's a fair point. If he wanted to, he could try to form his own studio like American Zoetrope or BBS (a production company responsible for Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider and The Last Picture Show.)

[ed2962]

I think it's more about weaker films than the good stuff. He seems to believe that bad stuff can diminish a reputation, which may be why he's big on the idea that he'll quit Hollywood after ten films.

I like the guy, but I think he's just run out of ideas. He's remade all the movies from the 70's that he likes. Other people are already hip to Asian cinema and redoing those. So there's nothing left for him. I actually wouldn't mind seeing him direct scripts by other people but he doesn't seem to be interested in that.

[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?

[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."

[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.

[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.

[ed2962]

Auteur theory is basically Hollywood's Great Man Theory.

I wouldn't go that far. The idea behind auteur theory is that the director has such control over a film that you can recognize his style or influence. There's lots of guys from Russ Meyer to Ed Wood and beyond that could be considered auteurs, but no one thinks of their movies as "great films".