Tarantino suggests modern era tied for worst ever

[Kirby101]

I don't think any of those are Award Bait movies. Movies like A Marriage Story or Crash are awards bait. NOT Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver....

[Mister Mets]

I don't think any of those are Award Bait movies. Movies like A Marriage Story or Crash are awards bait. NOT Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver....

I'm going with a generous interpretation. Ranking them in order of Oscarbait.

West Side Story is clearly Oscarbait, as a remake of a previous winner by a Director with two Oscars and nominations in every decade since the 70s.
There Will Be Blood was a period piece with an Oscar-winning actor in the lead.
Sorcerer was a remake of an acclaimed French film (the director disputes it) by an Oscar-winning director with a nominated actor as the lead.
Dunkirk is about World War 2 by a Director who made a film that was nominated for Best Picture (Interstellar) starring a previous winner (Mark Rylance) and nominee (Tom Hardy.)
Apocalypse Now was a war drama adapting a prestigious short novel by an Oscar-winning director featuring a previous winner (Marlon Brando) and previous nominee (Robert Duvall)
Taxi Driver had a lead role for a recent Oscar winner by a director who had gotten Ellen Burstyn an Oscar two years earlier.
The Social Network was a biopic about a recent scandal by an acclaimed director who had been nominated before (for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), although the cast was young.
The Great Escape was a World War 2 drama by a director with an earlier nomination, although the cast were not seen as Oscar favorites.

I'm not using Awards bait as a pejorative, but as a descriptive term for films that are greenlit with the understanding that Oscar campaigns and film festivals will be part of the promotional effort, due to a combination of subject matter and the pedigree of the filmmakers involved.

I think we can both agree that Tarantino does not have a bias towards these types of films.

[Kirby101]

People who had won or nominated for Oscars do not automatically make them Award Bait. Most of these were personal films by directors who wanted to make them, not to get awards, but because they felt an attachment to the project. I don't see any of these getting the green light for the purpose of getting awards. The Great Escape was not Bad Day at Black Rock, it's a big action epic with an all star cast. All the directors in the list above made the films they wanted to, not to chase Oscars. I have seen every one, and these do not feel anything like award bait movies.

[HollowSage]

Sure, but even at Marvel, it's no secret that the Black Panther and Black Widow movies were vetoed for years by Ike Pearlman and these weren't art house movies. Ike just thought they couldn't sell despite the fact that the general public were asking for them. It wasn't until Ike got moved to another position that we got BP and Captain Marvel and then BW. These movies were hits. Ike didn't want to make them because he didn't want to make them. Now think about how many other movies don't get greenlit because a studio head thinks, "Oh, this isn't interesting to me, therefore no one else is interested in it." The "let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes" attitude ended long ago.

Sure, these companies are run by people and people will always have their biases. That will always be true. However your own example proves that ultimately the desire for profit will win out in the end. If audiences want it then someone is going to find a way to give it to them and others will follow once they see there is money to be made.

I have no faith in people doing the right thing because it’s the right thing to do but I do have faith in people’s greed winning out over personal bias.

[godisawesome]

Tarantino's not really a big fan of award bait films. In a list of movies he likes, about 8 out of 45 would be Awardsbait (Steven Spielberg's West Side Story, Dunkirk, The Social Network, Apocalypse Now, The Great Escape, Sorcerer, There Will Be Blood, Taxi Driver) although most are not the conventional kind.

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/qu...r-hansen-1974/

I feel that’s more sign of Tarantino pointing out, separately, that art is subjective enough that his claims of quality drops or bad fads in the OP are overblown, personal taste issues. He’s a dude who has a clearly useful taste in movies, but it only aligns with what some art classes would call great films occasionally. But by the same token, that also means that he and others can sometimes just be old dudes annoyed at what the young kids like… just like the generation before them was annoyed at the grindhouse films he likes… and just like that generation was annoyed at the original epic movies or the cheap film noirs overshadowing their preferred stuff.

And to me, “award bait” is simply what a film has to rise above to actually be note-worthy, just like “art film,” and just like “blockbuster” or “crow pleaser”: the initial label is simply a qualifier for the marketing POV that good films will rise above… and that shouldn’t get sneered at just because one knows it’s trying to appeal to a larger number of people.

“Niche” should not make people think something is automatically fo greater quality compared to something more popular, and being popular does not mean that a film’ originally more niche objectives should be regarded as a sign of quality either.

Like… “Dunkirk” wasn’t a good movie because of Nolan having an “arty” concept for it. It was a good movie because it was a good movie… and the fact it was popular *should* be considered a possible sign of that, just as much as the lack of popularity should *sometimes* be also considered a deficit of certain critically acclaimed films.

[Zero Hunter]

A big factor is just the way people watch movies these days. Someone is way more likely to watch a drama at home on their big screen TV than at a theater. What people want on the big screen is spectacle or to share and audience experince like when watching a horror or comedy where the audience really gets into it. All directors want to make these deep thought provoking dramas, but that is just not what most people these days go to see in a theater.

[Catlady in training]

You know and the world knows you could watch any of his films and not feel sick afterwards unlike most of the movies he is obviously against.

I literally felt sick when watching Pulp Fiction. One of the most tasteless, cynical movies I've ever seen.
The only reason I read any opinion made by Tarantino is to verify that I have the opposite opinion and feel reassured.

[Ramsay Snow]

Glad you understand this much.



What the hell are you rambling about?



So what the hell do you and he have with other directors doing the same? Tarantino can write his own fanfic about how his self insert could beat Bruce Lee but other Hollywood directors are hacks for making superhero movies that people like?

You deserve an award for having an inhuman amount of patience in actually reading that guy's entire posts and responding.

That and he's talking about Tarantino having realism in his films........The same Tarantino that made a goofy vampire flick and a live-action hybrid anime/martial arts film, complete with open-neck geysers. I like some of Tarantino's films, but no.

[phonogram12]

I'm not going to lie. I've watched and enjoyed many of his films. That said he does seem to be very much stuck in his ways and may be a borderline luddite (I've read interviews where he claims his tv's aren't connected to his Internet service, hence he doesn't stream. But this was a few years ago, so it's entirely possible that may've changed by now). And when once asked a question by I believe Francis Ford Coppola if he would ever consider directing a non-genre movie, he flat out said no.

IDK, while he was clearly a cutting edge and a new and exciting cinematic voice of the 1990's, that title can be hard to hold onto 30 years later.

[Jim Kelly]

According to the quote in the original post, what he said was--“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!”

It's clear he's talking about Hollywood. So are people offended by this statement because of what it says about the movie industry in Hollywood--and perhaps more generally the United States--or for the sake of movies everywhere?

Because to me, as someone living outside the U.S. and therefore outside Hollywood, I don't have a high opinion of Hollywood studios now or in the past. They seem to have always abused and exploited the people working for them. Nor do I see the dominance of the U.S. in cinema as entirely a good thing for my country (Canada) or for other countries.

You would expect, as each country develops its own homegrown industry, film makers would gain a voice in their country and each nation would be able to celebrate its culture, rather than Hollywood movies taking up most of the screens and being piped into every home around the world.

If the U.S. is not doing such a good job at making movies anymore, that's a good thing, because it gives the rest of the world a chance to make their own movies and not have to compete with the corporate giant that is Hollywood. And it means that film people don't have to go to southern California to find work, where they'll likely be chewed up by the Hollywood machine. It's also an opportunity for other parts of the United States to invest in their own communities, making movies for their region rather than allowing one part of the nation to speak for the whole.

Tarantino is an inside Hollywood kind of guy, so he has to deal with the entanglements of working there. But I'm sure that he knows there are movies outside of Hollywood--which he has paid homage to in his movies. He seems to like those foreign movies well enough and maybe there are new international film makers he admires. He's just not happy being in Hollywood. Hardly a big revelation.

[Agent Z]

According to the quote in the original post, what he said was--“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!”

It's clear he's talking about Hollywood. So are people offended by this statement because of what it says about the movie industry in Hollywood--and perhaps more generally the United States--or for the sake of movies everywhere?

Because to me, as someone living outside the U.S. and therefore outside Hollywood, I don't have a high opinion of Hollywood studios now or in the past. They seem to have always abused and exploited the people working for them. Nor do I see the dominance of the U.S. in cinema as entirely a good thing for my country (Canada) or for other countries.

You would expect, as each country develops its own homegrown industry, film makers would gain a voice in their country and each nation would be able to celebrate its culture, rather than Hollywood movies taking up most of the screens and being piped into every home around the world.

If the U.S. is not doing such a good job at making movies anymore, that's a good thing, because it gives the rest of the world a chance to make their own movies and not have to compete with the corporate giant that is Hollywood. And it means that film people don't have to go to southern California to find work, where they'll likely be chewed up by the Hollywood machine. It's also an opportunity for other parts of the United States to invest in their own communities, making movies for their region rather than allowing one part of the nation to speak for the whole.

Tarantino is an inside Hollywood kind of guy, so he has to deal with the entanglements of working there. But I'm sure that he knows there are movies outside of Hollywood--which he has paid homage to in his movies. He seems to like those foreign movies well enough and maybe there are new international film makers he admires. He's just not happy being in Hollywood. Hardly a big revelation.

Let's not pretend Tarantino gives a damn about Hollywood dominance of the cinema world. He's just an old man cranky that modern movies don't appeal to him.

[Frobisher]

Commando came out in the 80s, therefore Tarantino’s whole premise is flawed.

[Mister Mets]

People who had won or nominated for Oscars do not automatically make them Award Bait. Most of these were personal films by directors who wanted to make them, not to get awards, but because they felt an attachment to the project. I don't see any of these getting the green light for the purpose of getting awards. The Great Escape was not Bad Day at Black Rock, it's a big action epic with an all star cast. All the directors in the list above made the films they wanted to, not to chase Oscars. I have seen every one, and these do not feel anything like award bait movies.

It seems awards bait is often used pejoratively to try to imply that the directors, cast and crew just want awards and don't take their work seriously. A similar argument is made with blockbusters and money.

The awards ecosystem is complicated. Sometimes the Oscars love films that don't seem typical of them. Moonlight was the second film by an obscure director based on an unpublished play with an unknown cast (the biggest star was maybe seventh on the call sheet in James Bond films) and a budget under $2,000,000. That said, they were likely hoping for some critics and festival awards, and maybe consideration in the Independent Spirit Awards.

There are films that I enjoy that are clearly awardsbait, made by people who also feel a strong attachment to the material. Spielberg's Lincoln or Damien Chazelle's La La Land come to mind. This doesn't mean that the people involved don't want to say something meaningful. Paul Haggis worked on Crash for years and worked himself into a heart attack during its production. So it's definitely not about getting awards, but that can be part of it, both from a desire for recognition and a hope to promote a film and its message.

Let's not pretend Tarantino gives a damn about Hollywood dominance of the cinema world. He's just an old man cranky that modern movies don't appeal to him.

He promotes quite a few films made outside of Hollywood.

[Jim Kelly]

It's also odd that he singles out the 1950s but not the 1960s. I remember the 1960s as being when Hollywood was in decline. The old classic Hollywood was still around in the 1950s, but in the 1960s the studio system was gone, the great actors were either dead or too old. Hollywood tried everything to get people to come back to the theatre--rather than staying home and watching the tube. I guess they tried so many different stunts that might appeal to Tarantino's eclectic tastes. But this was when international movies really came into their own. What was happening in other countries was quite exciting. You had the New Wave in France, movies from the likes of Fellini and Antonioni in Italy, Bergman in Sweden, epic films from Great Britain and Japan. Hollywood's loss was the world's gain.

The 1980s were another time when there were amazing developments around the world, while Hollywood mainly concentrated on commercial popcorn movies. Canada's film industry came alive--especially in Quebec. Australia had a string of wonderful movies from good directors. West Germany had a few great film makers all doing their best work. There were all sorts of movies coming out of the U.K. Tarkovsky was at the height of his career before his death. Hong Kong movies were a visual feast.

Anyway, I don't think we should bother with what artists say in interviews--unless the interview is their medium. Socrates and Regis Philbin thrived in the interview format. If you want to know what an artist thinks you should look to their art. A comic book writer should speak through the comic book, a film maker should send a message in a movie, a recording artist's feelings should come through on the recording.

[Sutekh]

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.

Yeah, he was already halfway to shouts-at-clouds, but at that point, remembering Dusk Till Dawn (one of my favorite Tarantino flicks!), and how 'realistic' that was, and laugh and laugh at the crazy man.

For 'worst generation for movies,' if you are going to rant about this generation's crop of movies and not mention those Transformers movies, then you're just objectively wrong.