I think truly great directors are always a little ahead of where the film industry is. Oscar winning directors cater to trends that have already been set. In the case of genre directors like Hitchcock, the Oscars have always been prejudiced towards genre films. Why do you think horror and science fiction films rarely win?
Your first sentence is going to be the case even if voters made a genuine effort to choose the most deserving film. Voters disagree, voter splits happen that usher in a dark horse, etc. But the bigger thing is that the award-worthiness of something is a byproduct of its time at the time. Decades later, the zeitgeist matures and is inevitably going to have a different view of movies of the past
I think the Oscars should have a special category called "Second look" where a movie that was great at the time it was released but passed over for an oscar might be worthy of re-consideration later on. Especially for movies that have grown exponentially in popularity over time, or have become cult classics. Movies like Django or Fight Club, for example. There are many, many others, but you get my point.
Except within the industry, and it can make a difference as to whether you get financing, or can buy you a few more chances at the circus...Unless your movie bombs. Then folks won't answer your calls!!
This is a great idea. The Oscars would never do it because it means admitting that they are flawed, that their system doesn't work like they say. But it would make a great series of some kind. I'm sure someone with a podcast will do it.
Which of these directors has won the Oscar for Best Director? Spike Lee Christopher Nolan Alfred Hitchcock David Fincher Penny Marshall Quentin Tarantino Robert Altman Tim Burton Paul Thomas Anderson Mary Harron Ridley Scott Wes Anderson David Lynch Sidney Lumet
The Oscars likes certain types of films. People forget that it's just a Hollywood awards show and not a stamp of quality, there's nothing universal about it, it's just one point of view. The only thing that gives it power is there's big money behind it. And a quick glance at its history shows it often rewards mawkish tripe and ignores genius.
Thing is, they wouldn't be able to get it "right" even if they tried. Tastes evolve over the decades so looking back, there's always going to be something we look back on and think should have won instead
This is what's wrong with the Oscars. He criticized Tarantino and Nolan for being artistic. Movies are art and the Oscars only want to rate movies on things they think is important. Who cares if Nolan wants to mess with the audio or if Tarantino want to make a longer movie? (I liked the Hateful Eight). These directors don't make the cut because the Oscars can't keep up.
He's talking about Nolan making the audio in Tenet so bad you don't get critical exposition that you NEED to know to understand the movie. It's not an artistic decision to obscure information, it's just a mistake.
@@Horatio787 Tenet was the first movie, especially of its caliber, in terms of being a Nolan film, budget, etc., I not only fell asleep on, but completely lost interest in. I tried twice to finish it, forcing myself because maybe I was "tired" when I was watching it. After the second viewing I got to like 75% in and had to stop again, having still maintained a very disappointed, even apprehensive, feeling towards the film. Finishing Tenet after that wasn't even an afterthought. Nolan's decision with the audio completely took me out of the experience. It just pissed me off the entire time, also pulling to light more criticisms of the film's other elements.....story, performances, dialogue, fight choreography, etc. I felt disrespected as a viewer, as though some pawn for some A-hole's experimental amusement.....sigh...... Nolan, you do you buddy. But a filmmaker, no matter how artistically driven, has to take audience into account. If your choices are turning your audience away then they aren't good choices. Sure, you can argue "I don't make films for other people. I make MY films how I want." Well, that's cool. You can shit in public and some people will watch out of curiosity. Most will turn away, or, not even look if they get a whiff. Eventually, you'll just be that alley shitter people know is there but act like they don't see......Man, I wish I had a small fraction of the kind of money Nolan had to "experiment" with..... :)
@OneMan4onestudios I genuinely don't know how you watch any movies if you consider audio to be personal attacks and are offended. I have not met a single person that "couldn't finish" Tenet. They either loved it, liked it buy didn't understand certain points or just hated it. To no be able to finish it because of how offended you are? That's a first. Probably a you thing. 😆
An Oscar is a pat on the back by a small group of people. Box office receipts are multiple awards by those who went because they wanted to to see your work! There’s the TRUE award!
In the Cannes Film Festival Their concern is the art, not the director. Their goal is to find a movie that has pushed cinema forward not a movie that is good. When you dissect a good movie is it because of its success? Or how complete it is. Making movies is a science and an art. The Oscars push the movies that elevate the agendas Hollywood chooses. Very rarely does a movie win for its significance and value to Cinema and the Medium. It’s the same with Directors. Luis Buñuel Hated the idea of Oscars precisely because of that. Stanley Kubrick never cared for Them. Fellini knew Cannes was more important. These are Directors that changed cinema forever, The only good thing an Oscar can give a Director is a push on their career and the prestige. But don’t get me wrong winning an Oscar still has value in the industry but mainly Hollywood itself
Supposedly, Kubrick never won an Oscar because there was resentment that he filmed most or all of his movies in Europe nor overseas, rather than in the US. Academy members felt that took jobs away from American production workers and technicians on his obviously brilliant films. Not from US actors, but from the rank-and-file union guys. Especially since he was born in New York City.
I think if directors want awards for their art, that's what the Academy Awards are for, if they want to turn heads of the "upper crust" that's what the Oscars are for. I think it's a class system of awards. Are we really going to compare any Tarantino movie with Dances With Wolves that never utters a single profane word? It's high tea vs camp fire coffee. I drink tea and coffee depending on my mood but never mix them. Trust me, the Oscars don't want to mix either, and they'll never admit it.
@@d.olree1219 i think it was Godard (r.i.p as of today) who said something like: all films are living in the same "house". Different rooms, different floors. One big family.
The reason, I think, why great directors don’t win Oscars is because the Academy Awards are political in the way the winners are chosen. Every year, AMPAS has a complicated electoral process in which only their members can vote. During pre-elections, members can only vote for candidates in the category that they belong to. Once the official nominees are chosen, every member can vote on every category and the candidates with more votes are the winners. What this means is that people can and DO campaign to get voted. There are campaign managers and everything. It can be expensive. So… I believe that great directors don’t care about campaigning. They can’t be bothered. They’re thinking about their next movie before they’ve finished the one their working on. They are artists. This makes them vulnerable to the power of people with big sponsors who campaign all year long for their proteges to win the Academy Award… and that’s how they, great directors, lose every time.
Marketing and hype play a big part. There's also the machinations behind the scenes. _Shakespeare In Love_ beating _Saving Private Ryan_ at the Oscars for Best Picture is an example of politics over product.
You're right but great directors don't lose EVERY time. There's quite a few worthy wins over the years like Schindler's List and Forrest Gump, and even without a lick of campaigning there will ALWAYS be movies that win that you disagree with.
Tarintino, Nolan et al...haha...try Stanely Kubrick, a supreme director of many genres, won nothing and was hardly nominated but yet is considered arguably the best film director to come out of the English speaking cinema.
I watched The Outfit on the airplane two days ago. A great movie in many ways, but they just kept adding twists and the movie went on for 25 minutes longer than it should have. The story was already over, but then a new plot piece is added to a plot line that was already over.
Films resonate and stay with you based on their intrinsic merits, not the number of awards collected. A filmmaker’s relevance is cemented based on how timeless their work is, not the amount of statues they have sitting on their self. Without using Google, name who won best director in 1986? What about 1994? 2007? What movie won Best Film in 2009? And in 1979? 2017? Even if you have the habit of memorizing Oscar Winners lists by year, are any of those films and filmmakers your favorites because of the Oscars they won? Awards are good marketing ploys within the industry and in some - some! - cases, help bring the public’s attention to a film that would otherwise go unnoticed, but no movie or filmmaker will escape the pits of oblivion based on awards.
The Oscars has basically become a checklist, and you get a little trophy when you check all items. You might even get a star sticker on some walkway in Hollywood if you checked those items really really well.
This is deceiving NO OSCARS title,thought this was about getting rid of the Oscars ceremony altogether not QT having no Academy awards. Hollywood is a dying sh**hole and the movie industry as a whole not worth a plugged nickle.
I think one reason why Quentin Tarantino is a great director is that he is immersed in the content of every film he makes. When you hear him speak on a podcast or late night talk show he sounds like he's studied his films, characters, and plots and knows what makes them good or great. He not only does this for his own films, but other directors films as well.
3:00 Everything Everywhere all At once. I thought I was crazy, because the movie really dragged for me and a lot of my friends were praising this film 🤷🏻♀️
After completing the manuscript for my last book, the majority of my beta readers suggested that I eliminate some of the content because it did not contribute to the overall greatness of the story and the dialogue was too long in a particular chapter. I came to the realization that they were right and I heeded their advice, and I'm glad I did. Great advice.
I totally second the Nolan audio issues. I took my grandfather to see Dunkirk, and the explosions and score were so deafening that we could neither hear nor understand the dialogue. So unfortunate, because it’s a good film.
I find this conversation often fails to mention specifics. For example, yes Tarantino never won best director for Pulp Fiction, but it was up against Forest Gump and Shawshank Redemption. All very good movies. Yes Hitchcock never won best director for Rear Window, but he lost to Elia Kazan and On The Waterfront. Again that’s some excellent competition. It’s not like the Academy hated them or anything. They gave Tarantino two oscars for his writing, and they awarded Hitchcock’s film Rebecca as best picture.
I consider Tarantino amongst the "new" era filmmakers. It consists of 4 filmmakers.....Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeaneave and PT Anderson. They all have a singular vision. All love celluloid as a format and hate to varying degree digital medium.
Majority of awards shows today especially the Oscars are just a popularity contest only. Films, stars, and filmmakers who should win never do. Only the ones who suck up the most win. Over half of the projects or people who have own the past few decades are not that good in the first place.
Does he need to win an Oscar? For someone like Tarantino, it feels like if he consciously took the direction to win, he wouldn't give us his vision. He would be pandering.
The movies Charlie Kaufman writes are among my personal favorites, but the ones he writes and directs creep me out. However, people really seem to enjoy his directed movies, so what do I know?
Quentin is a director and artist pur sang. He wants to entertain people (with his own ideas). These independent people are hated by Hollyweird. Hollywood is pure politics. Sadly. Hence the dearth of high quality movies these past 10 years.
Too long? Where is the 'natural point' that a film ends? Isn't that pitching the film to the concentration span we've been brainwashed to tolerate? Reminds me of the scene in Amadeus where the Emperor says to Mozart - 'too many notes'!
Even Tarantino if had someone he trusted, who wasn't afraid to criticize his work, he's still not likely to convince Tarantino that his instincts are wrong. At that point, it becomes one opinion vs another, and Tarantino always has the winning rebuttal: "I'm among the best filmmakers of all time, who are you again?"
There's also the idea that a writer/director that's extremely good at one type of movie, say, murder mysteries, but you're absolutely terrible at scifi, you can have an area of expertise as a writer/director, and you can have some where you need to pick one job.
Kubrick never was even nominated for a best director at the academy awards if I'm not mistaken, let alone win. But how could one nominate Eyes Wide Shut, 2001ASO, A clockwork Orange or Lolita? That's artistry. It goes over the head of these academy judges(spread all over the city of Los Angeles). That's artistry. And it outstays the academy award fame or name. 8 out of 10 best winners Directors wouldn't be recognisable.
Mulholland Drive was artistry yet Lynch got nominated for that one But taking your point at face value, artistry doesn't go over their head, it's just not the focus of the Oscars. They're essentially there to strike a balance between popular movies under the semi-guise of high cinema
My ultimate argument for why Oscars don't matter is that A New Hope didn't win in 1977. Is that fair? No. Are the Oscars a mark of quality and legacy? No.
Oscars is politicised garbage, and it has only been getting worse. What is the point of a competition that rewards political whims over accomplishment?
Eventually someday the likes of Alfred Hitchcock,Christopher Lee,Bruce Lee,Tom Savini,Greg Nicotero,George Lucas,and even both Tom Cruise and Quentin Tarantino will receive honorary Oscars for their contributions to the film industry,as the likes of Martin Scorsese,Jackie Chan,Roger Corman,and David Lynch have proven that hard work and strong determination can enable one to win that most prestigious Oscar.
I really doubt what he is saying because he just said endgame is a good film and interstellar was his fav Nolan movie .... I love endgame but the directors themselves would say they didn't care about it as movie but a journey of 10 years ....
A movie store employee named Tarantino goes on to write movies that will be revered as brilliant classics for decades to come, while iconic film makers Spielberg and Lucas hand hold 2 sub-par pupils like JJ Abrams, a copy and paste grifter, and Kathleen Kennedy, a vengeful protege with a Napoleon complex, who can't even tell a mildly coherent story. Makes me respect Tarantino even more.
Tarantino is a hack, though. All Tarantino does and has done his entire career is borrow or flat out rip off other better directors and movies. Doesn't matter how he puts those elements together, he's still never had a wholly original idea. Should you reward someone like that? We should reward people with a singular vision and creativity, not someone who's just making an inferior cinematic collage of other peoples work.
Thanks for your 'you don't mess with the audio, don't mess with the dialog'. I don't know what drove Nolan to do that, it's such an annoyance for the audience.
"So I think he won... But then if we think about life, the universe and everything... Ok, ok I'm going to give you a number. For sure he didn't win one for Django, oh, oh here is an interesting story..." (SMITH-SLAP) ANSWER. THE. FRIGGING. QUESTION!!!
"Why great directors don't win Oscars" - much commentary on what makes a great director but never answers the question. Quentin Tarantino may be a great director but he offends a lot of people too. His movies are drenched in profanity and vulgarity. I'm not saying he should be censored, or tone it down, he should NOT. That's his art. But he will get the recognition for his ideas and how it's portrayed but never reach the top shelf if he offends one time too many. And everybody knows what to expect from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
It's not crazy, Tarantino makes popcorn movies, his movies have no depth, they are cinephile movies,.movies based off other movies, he has absolutely nothing to say, but they are entertaining.
Basically Oscar (academy including emmy) is too political and just pushes diversity and not actually what is the best project objectively... which does makes sense that it is hard to have objective lense for a movie and thus they go for this formula.... But look ... That's plain wrong.... For Nolan and his audio ... I get what he is trying to do. it's not experimenting, it's expressing, he just puts the music as it should be in real in movies, astronauts don't understand what they say in space as we should not too, and same for other of his examples ....
Plenty of great directors have won Oscars. This is just silly. This guy is just making stuff up. Does he really know for a fact that people don’t offer advice to Tarantino and that they are quaking in their boots at the idea? He didn’t even know if Tarantino had won an Oscar.
Sally Menke was the one person that could tell QT what to hold back on. She is severely missed. His movies have suffered from length ever since she passed.
I feel like the focus on directors comes from this old idea that the "Director" is the true author of the film itself. That is pretty much bull shit for like 90% of all movies made today. The WRITER is the author! Movies as we think of them exist as another form of storytelling and writing that story is the writers job and always was! The directer's job at best is to have the main say in how that story (already written by the writer) is presented to us the audience! At the least, the director is the person who decides where to point the camera and tells the actors what to do. If your a writer-director yes, are still the author as well. What I am saying is unless you are Tarantino, Scorsese, Kubrick, Fincher, Nolan, Hitchcock or Spielberg, all directors who have a consistent vision on the movies they make, you as a director are NOT sole author of the project. Even Spielberg and Hitchcock have both said from the beginning that be best place to start for making a great movie is to pick a great script!
Hi Karen I have a question for film courage to actors writers and especially directors Here's the question: Can directors be only translators for screenwriters's vision ? And why? 🤍 If this question is already asked then I would appreciate receiving the link . Thanks 🤍
I think .. celebrities need to slap comedians in the Oscars to win an Oscar.. look at will smith..he's a terrible actor only knows how to shout with feelings..but he won an Oscar.
I can no longer listen without committing. EVERY major director says the script is the most important first step of a project, and you cannot save a bad script with any amount of direction or editing. You can make major re-writes and possible save a mediocre movie, as is the case for "Payback" with Mel Gibson.The original was good, but the re-write was amazing. They added about 15 scenes and several major actors to save the film. Every great filmmaker states that a film is written three times: once in the writing, once in direction and once in the editing and post. The writing, direction and editing all need to be an amazing effort to make an amazing movie. Also, directing IS NOT the most important part - see above. Lastly, virtually every great movie has conflict and subtext (Aaron Soaking - "What do the characters want, and what's in the way". Almost no terrible movies have adequate subtext or conflict. Hierarchically, you MUST have the qualities to attempt to make something watchable. I call my key to writing the "Breaking Bad Rule": If there are two or more characters in a scene, there is conflict between hem, 95% of the time. This is not an accident.
What are you talking about? They are both commercial, big budget, directors. They may both be “quirky”, but neither are making auteur movies, only for themselves. You are falling for MARKETING.
I think I know this guy…
Small world
He'd make a perfect prequel J. Jonah Jameson. Lol.
@@PhantomFilmAustralia Perfect casting
Iron man
@@GregoriusRooseno
You got it.
It just tells you what the value of an Oscar is.
Best comment ever.
it's political and ritual and promotional hogwash
I think truly great directors are always a little ahead of where the film industry is. Oscar winning directors cater to trends that have already been set. In the case of genre directors like Hitchcock, the Oscars have always been prejudiced towards genre films. Why do you think horror and science fiction films rarely win?
Your first sentence is going to be the case even if voters made a genuine effort to choose the most deserving film. Voters disagree, voter splits happen that usher in a dark horse, etc. But the bigger thing is that the award-worthiness of something is a byproduct of its time at the time. Decades later, the zeitgeist matures and is inevitably going to have a different view of movies of the past
I think the Oscars should have a special category called "Second look" where a movie that was great at the time it was released but passed over for an oscar might be worthy of re-consideration later on. Especially for movies that have grown exponentially in popularity over time, or have become cult classics. Movies like Django or Fight Club, for example. There are many, many others, but you get my point.
That would be cool
That's actually a pretty good idea!
Nobody cares about the WOKE Oscars, like nobody
Except within the industry, and it can make a difference as to whether you get financing, or can buy you a few more chances at the circus...Unless your movie bombs. Then folks won't answer your calls!!
This is a great idea. The Oscars would never do it because it means admitting that they are flawed, that their system doesn't work like they say. But it would make a great series of some kind. I'm sure someone with a podcast will do it.
I haven't heard of this Erick Weber before, but he really has some great thought on these topics. Will have to look him up.
Midnight Movie Talk! Lol
Which of these directors has won the Oscar for Best Director?
Spike Lee
Christopher Nolan
Alfred Hitchcock
David Fincher
Penny Marshall
Quentin Tarantino
Robert Altman
Tim Burton
Paul Thomas Anderson
Mary Harron
Ridley Scott
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
Sidney Lumet
From what I know of is Sidney lumet, for 12 angry men
Great guess!
Not counting honorary Oscars, none of them. Although, Tarantino and Spike have won Oscars for writing.
I believe it’s Sydney Lumet.
Edit: wow, should have been obvious.
I'd say Tarantino or Fincher
The Oscars likes certain types of films. People forget that it's just a Hollywood awards show and not a stamp of quality, there's nothing universal about it, it's just one point of view. The only thing that gives it power is there's big money behind it. And a quick glance at its history shows it often rewards mawkish tripe and ignores genius.
Thing is, they wouldn't be able to get it "right" even if they tried. Tastes evolve over the decades so looking back, there's always going to be something we look back on and think should have won instead
This is what's wrong with the Oscars. He criticized Tarantino and Nolan for being artistic. Movies are art and the Oscars only want to rate movies on things they think is important. Who cares if Nolan wants to mess with the audio or if Tarantino want to make a longer movie? (I liked the Hateful Eight). These directors don't make the cut because the Oscars can't keep up.
He's talking about Nolan making the audio in Tenet so bad you don't get critical exposition that you NEED to know to understand the movie. It's not an artistic decision to obscure information, it's just a mistake.
@@Horatio787 Tenet was the first movie, especially of its caliber, in terms of being a Nolan film, budget, etc., I not only fell asleep on, but completely lost interest in. I tried twice to finish it, forcing myself because maybe I was "tired" when I was watching it. After the second viewing I got to like 75% in and had to stop again, having still maintained a very disappointed, even apprehensive, feeling towards the film. Finishing Tenet after that wasn't even an afterthought. Nolan's decision with the audio completely took me out of the experience. It just pissed me off the entire time, also pulling to light more criticisms of the film's other elements.....story, performances, dialogue, fight choreography, etc. I felt disrespected as a viewer, as though some pawn for some A-hole's experimental amusement.....sigh...... Nolan, you do you buddy. But a filmmaker, no matter how artistically driven, has to take audience into account. If your choices are turning your audience away then they aren't good choices. Sure, you can argue "I don't make films for other people. I make MY films how I want." Well, that's cool. You can shit in public and some people will watch out of curiosity. Most will turn away, or, not even look if they get a whiff. Eventually, you'll just be that alley shitter people know is there but act like they don't see......Man, I wish I had a small fraction of the kind of money Nolan had to "experiment" with..... :)
@@OneMan4onestudios Tenet did not at all turn me away. I've watched it in full 3 times and love it
@OneMan4onestudios I genuinely don't know how you watch any movies if you consider audio to be personal attacks and are offended. I have not met a single person that "couldn't finish" Tenet. They either loved it, liked it buy didn't understand certain points or just hated it. To no be able to finish it because of how offended you are? That's a first. Probably a you thing. 😆
I absolutely agree with collaborating with a close-minded friend. It often helps to make a stronger and more focused end result.
Lol Tarantino knows how to film what he sees in his head because he already watched it in someone else's film. Film makers are so jaded it's unreal.
Wow, me and Hitchcock have the same amount of Oscar’s.
😂😂
An Oscar is a pat on the back by a small group of people. Box office receipts are multiple awards by those who went because they wanted to to see your work! There’s the TRUE award!
Great Directors write stories
In the Cannes Film Festival Their concern is the art, not the director. Their goal is to find a movie that has pushed cinema forward not a movie that is good. When you dissect a good movie is it because of its success? Or how complete it is. Making movies is a science and an art. The Oscars push the movies that elevate the agendas Hollywood chooses. Very rarely does a movie win for its significance and value to Cinema and the Medium. It’s the same with Directors.
Luis Buñuel Hated the idea of Oscars precisely because of that. Stanley Kubrick never cared for Them. Fellini knew Cannes was more important. These are Directors that changed cinema forever, The only good thing an Oscar can give a Director is a push on their career and the prestige. But don’t get me wrong winning an Oscar still has value in the industry but mainly Hollywood itself
I think the point of festivals and Awards is exposure. Quality movies all compiled into the same space. They are not the statement on who's the best.
Supposedly, Kubrick never won an Oscar because there was resentment that he filmed most or all of his movies in Europe nor overseas, rather than in the US. Academy members felt that took jobs away from American production workers and technicians on his obviously brilliant films. Not from US actors, but from the rank-and-file union guys. Especially since he was born in New York City.
Yeah the Oscar win for Rashomon actually saved Kurosawas career. Can you imagine a world without his euvre? It's like a world without the beatles.
I think if directors want awards for their art, that's what the Academy Awards are for, if they want to turn heads of the "upper crust" that's what the Oscars are for. I think it's a class system of awards. Are we really going to compare any Tarantino movie with Dances With Wolves that never utters a single profane word? It's high tea vs camp fire coffee. I drink tea and coffee depending on my mood but never mix them. Trust me, the Oscars don't want to mix either, and they'll never admit it.
@@d.olree1219 i think it was Godard (r.i.p as of today) who said something like: all films are living in the same "house". Different rooms, different floors. One big family.
Wow.. worth listening to again
and again
The reason, I think, why great directors don’t win Oscars is because the Academy Awards are political in the way the winners are chosen.
Every year, AMPAS has a complicated electoral process in which only their members can vote. During pre-elections, members can only vote for candidates in the category that they belong to. Once the official nominees are chosen, every member can vote on every category and the candidates with more votes are the winners.
What this means is that people can and DO campaign to get voted. There are campaign managers and everything. It can be expensive.
So… I believe that great directors don’t care about campaigning. They can’t be bothered. They’re thinking about their next movie before they’ve finished the one their working on. They are artists. This makes them vulnerable to the power of people with big sponsors who campaign all year long for their proteges to win the Academy Award… and that’s how they, great directors, lose every time.
Marketing and hype play a big part. There's also the machinations behind the scenes. _Shakespeare In Love_ beating _Saving Private Ryan_ at the Oscars for Best Picture is an example of politics over product.
You're right but great directors don't lose EVERY time. There's quite a few worthy wins over the years like Schindler's List and Forrest Gump, and even without a lick of campaigning there will ALWAYS be movies that win that you disagree with.
Tarantino has won Best Screenplay for both Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained. He's at least been acknowledged for his storytelling.
Tarintino, Nolan et al...haha...try Stanely Kubrick, a supreme director of many genres, won nothing and was hardly nominated but yet is considered arguably the best film director to come out of the English speaking cinema.
Yep. And Kurosawa
I watched The Outfit on the airplane two days ago. A great movie in many ways, but they just kept adding twists and the movie went on for 25 minutes longer than it should have. The story was already over, but then a new plot piece is added to a plot line that was already over.
Films resonate and stay with you based on their intrinsic merits, not the number of awards collected. A filmmaker’s relevance is cemented based on how timeless their work is, not the amount of statues they have sitting on their self. Without using Google, name who won best director in 1986? What about 1994? 2007? What movie won Best Film in 2009? And in 1979? 2017? Even if you have the habit of memorizing Oscar Winners lists by year, are any of those films and filmmakers your favorites because of the Oscars they won?
Awards are good marketing ploys within the industry and in some - some! - cases, help bring the public’s attention to a film that would otherwise go unnoticed, but no movie or filmmaker will escape the pits of oblivion based on awards.
He should’ve won for Inglorius & Django
The Oscars has basically become a checklist, and you get a little trophy when you check all items.
You might even get a star sticker on some walkway in Hollywood if you checked those items really really well.
This is deceiving NO OSCARS title,thought this was about getting rid of the Oscars ceremony altogether not QT having no Academy awards.
Hollywood is a dying sh**hole and the movie industry as a whole not worth a plugged nickle.
Tell us how you really feel...don't hold back!!
I think one reason why Quentin Tarantino is a great director is that he is immersed in the content of every film he makes. When you hear him speak on a podcast or late night talk show he sounds like he's studied his films, characters, and plots and knows what makes them good or great. He not only does this for his own films, but other directors films as well.
3:00 Everything Everywhere all At once. I thought I was crazy, because the movie really dragged for me and a lot of my friends were praising this film 🤷🏻♀️
After completing the manuscript for my last book, the majority of my beta readers suggested that I eliminate some of the content because it did not contribute to the overall greatness of the story and the dialogue was too long in a particular chapter. I came to the realization that they were right and I heeded their advice, and I'm glad I did. Great advice.
I totally second the Nolan audio issues. I took my grandfather to see Dunkirk, and the explosions and score were so deafening that we could neither hear nor understand the dialogue. So unfortunate, because it’s a good film.
I find this conversation often fails to mention specifics.
For example, yes Tarantino never won best director for Pulp Fiction, but it was up against Forest Gump and Shawshank Redemption. All very good movies.
Yes Hitchcock never won best director for Rear Window, but he lost to Elia Kazan and On The Waterfront. Again that’s some excellent competition.
It’s not like the Academy hated them or anything. They gave Tarantino two oscars for his writing, and they awarded Hitchcock’s film Rebecca as best picture.
So what's the Tarantino-Bong interesting story??
I consider Tarantino amongst the "new" era filmmakers. It consists of 4 filmmakers.....Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeaneave and PT Anderson. They all have a singular vision. All love celluloid as a format and hate to varying degree digital medium.
Majority of awards shows today especially the Oscars are just a popularity contest only. Films, stars, and filmmakers who should win never do. Only the ones who suck up the most win. Over half of the projects or people who have own the past few decades are not that good in the first place.
What about ghostbusters 2016, the last Jedi, Charlie's angels?.
Does he need to win an Oscar? For someone like Tarantino, it feels like if he consciously took the direction to win, he wouldn't give us his vision. He would be pandering.
While RRR, 3h long felt like 1h.
The movies Charlie Kaufman writes are among my personal favorites, but the ones he writes and directs creep me out. However, people really seem to enjoy his directed movies, so what do I know?
I agree with you they are very honest and are very similar to how Bukowski writes
Quentin is a director and artist pur sang. He wants to entertain people (with his own ideas). These independent people are hated by Hollyweird. Hollywood is pure politics. Sadly. Hence the dearth of high quality movies these past 10 years.
ALFRED HITCHCOCK IS THE G.O.A.T.
You are correct
Man, this dude is speaking my language. Django and Interstellar are my favorites from Tarantino and Nolan as well. Great interview 👍
Too long? Where is the 'natural point' that a film ends? Isn't that pitching the film to the concentration span we've been brainwashed to tolerate? Reminds me of the scene in Amadeus where the Emperor says to Mozart - 'too many notes'!
Hit the nail on the head here. Tarantino movies almost all too long. The dude looooves the sound of his own voice. 😂
Even Tarantino if had someone he trusted, who wasn't afraid to criticize his work, he's still not likely to convince Tarantino that his instincts are wrong. At that point, it becomes one opinion vs another, and Tarantino always has the winning rebuttal: "I'm among the best filmmakers of all time, who are you again?"
There's also the idea that a writer/director that's extremely good at one type of movie, say, murder mysteries, but you're absolutely terrible at scifi, you can have an area of expertise as a writer/director, and you can have some where you need to pick one job.
Kubrick never was even nominated for a best director at the academy awards if I'm not mistaken, let alone win. But how could one nominate Eyes Wide Shut, 2001ASO, A clockwork Orange or Lolita? That's artistry. It goes over the head of these academy judges(spread all over the city of Los Angeles). That's artistry. And it outstays the academy award fame or name. 8 out of 10 best winners Directors wouldn't be recognisable.
He did win an Oscar for Best Visual Effects for the film 2001. He kind of pulled her dick move to get it.
Mulholland Drive was artistry yet Lynch got nominated for that one
But taking your point at face value, artistry doesn't go over their head, it's just not the focus of the Oscars. They're essentially there to strike a balance between popular movies under the semi-guise of high cinema
Enjoy the vids he’s in!
My ultimate argument for why Oscars don't matter is that A New Hope didn't win in 1977. Is that fair? No. Are the Oscars a mark of quality and legacy? No.
well said
Because great directors win the people's hearts instead :)
Don't have a group of yes men, have group of people that challenges and improve your ideas.
Oscars is politicised garbage, and it has only been getting worse. What is the point of a competition that rewards political whims over accomplishment?
Tarantino has 2 Oscars for writing Pulp Fiction and Django. Nolan has zero. Nolan deserves an Oscar over Tarantino right now.
Oscar today already mandate nonsense things, no wonder it's always about there own circles
Respectfully. Nolan and Tarantino make films for themselves and what they would enjoy. I can’t blame them I enjoy them as they are.
Presenting, being interviewed, and writing. People only ever possess the skills of 2 and never 3. The same is true of directing, acting, and writing.
Why would Quentin listen to this dude, lets be honest
He even has the audacity to preach Christopher Nolan
Eventually someday the likes of Alfred Hitchcock,Christopher Lee,Bruce Lee,Tom Savini,Greg Nicotero,George Lucas,and even both Tom Cruise and Quentin Tarantino will receive honorary Oscars for their contributions to the film industry,as the likes of Martin Scorsese,Jackie Chan,Roger Corman,and David Lynch have proven that hard work and strong determination can enable one to win that most prestigious Oscar.
I think Hitchcock did eventually get one of those, just like Peter O'Toole, Cary Grant, and others.
I really doubt what he is saying because he just said endgame is a good film and interstellar was his fav Nolan movie .... I love endgame but the directors themselves would say they didn't care about it as movie but a journey of 10 years ....
I love all of the directors they listed except for Altman, each film of his I’ve seen just feels so remote and dull.
they should just have an 'S tier' so they can give multiple oscars if they all meet the bar.
A movie store employee named Tarantino goes on to write movies that will be revered as brilliant classics for decades to come, while iconic film makers Spielberg and Lucas hand hold 2 sub-par pupils like JJ Abrams, a copy and paste grifter, and Kathleen Kennedy, a vengeful protege with a Napoleon complex, who can't even tell a mildly coherent story. Makes me respect Tarantino even more.
Tarantino is a hack, though. All Tarantino does and has done his entire career is borrow or flat out rip off other better directors and movies. Doesn't matter how he puts those elements together, he's still never had a wholly original idea. Should you reward someone like that? We should reward people with a singular vision and creativity, not someone who's just making an inferior cinematic collage of other peoples work.
Hence why wes Anderson has won enough times and taranto hasn't.
At last someone calling this out, for years I've said Tarantino simply lifts and plagiarises others ideas and wraps them up as his own, total hack.
Erick makes some great points, but I could barely make it through Social Network, bored the hell out of me.
Spike Lee made the Oldboy remake, so I feel like that disqualifies him as an overall good director
Tarantino won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Django Unchained :-)
In a just world, Tarantino would have won a best director Oscar for every single movie he made other than "Death Proof."
I personally think David Finchers Girl
With the dragon tattoo and Gone Girl were far superior than to the social network
Agree!
Remember. The director of Cats has an Oscar
Awards are worthless. being able to create and have an audience for that creation should be reward/award enough
Great directors are groundbreakers; Oscars are for people who promote the Hollywood mystique.
Thanks for your 'you don't mess with the audio, don't mess with the dialog'. I don't know what drove Nolan to do that, it's such an annoyance for the audience.
Spike has one
For writing a screenplay, not for direction..
"So I think he won... But then if we think about life, the universe and everything... Ok, ok I'm going to give you a number. For sure he didn't win one for Django, oh, oh here is an interesting story..."
(SMITH-SLAP) ANSWER. THE. FRIGGING. QUESTION!!!
Tenet would still have been an absolutely terrible movie with proper audio, but would probably be at least a 3 instead of a 1.
For you.
@@srksharma8199 lol obviously it’s my opinion
"Why great directors don't win Oscars" - much commentary on what makes a great director but never answers the question. Quentin Tarantino may be a great director but he offends a lot of people too. His movies are drenched in profanity and vulgarity. I'm not saying he should be censored, or tone it down, he should NOT. That's his art. But he will get the recognition for his ideas and how it's portrayed but never reach the top shelf if he offends one time too many. And everybody knows what to expect from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
It’s amazing how many words this guy uses to say nothing.
It's not crazy, Tarantino makes popcorn movies, his movies have no depth, they are cinephile movies,.movies based off other movies, he has absolutely nothing to say, but they are entertaining.
NO, 12 years a slave deserved to win over django.
Gonna have to disagree with Everything Everywhere All At Once's film length. Every minute felt important to watch.
This guy calls him self a critic and he had to guess instead of know of the top of his head those directors won no Oscar’s oh god help us
J J Abrams is near or at the top of directors who should not write
Basically Oscar (academy including emmy) is too political and just pushes diversity and not actually what is the best project objectively... which does makes sense that it is hard to have objective lense for a movie and thus they go for this formula.... But look ... That's plain wrong.... For Nolan and his audio ... I get what he is trying to do. it's not experimenting, it's expressing, he just puts the music as it should be in real in movies, astronauts don't understand what they say in space as we should not too, and same for other of his examples ....
Plenty of great directors have won Oscars. This is just silly. This guy is just making stuff up. Does he really know for a fact that people don’t offer advice to Tarantino and that they are quaking in their boots at the idea? He didn’t even know if Tarantino had won an Oscar.
Tarantino will peobably get an honorary Oscar once he's retired or something.
Spike lee won an Oscar for black klansman
Who is this guy? I love Nolan, but he named, imo, one of the weakest Nolan movie - Interstellar. Otherwise, pretty much agreed with everything he said
Erick Weber
Sally Menke was the one person that could tell QT what to hold back on.
She is severely missed.
His movies have suffered from length ever since she passed.
tarantino has won two oscars smh
I feel like the focus on directors comes from this old idea that the "Director" is the true author of the film itself. That is pretty much bull shit for like 90% of all movies made today. The WRITER is the author! Movies as we think of them exist as another form of storytelling and writing that story is the writers job and always was! The directer's job at best is to have the main say in how that story (already written by the writer) is presented to us the audience! At the least, the director is the person who decides where to point the camera and tells the actors what to do. If your a writer-director yes, are still the author as well. What I am saying is unless you are Tarantino, Scorsese, Kubrick, Fincher, Nolan, Hitchcock or Spielberg, all directors who have a consistent vision on the movies they make, you as a director are NOT sole author of the project. Even Spielberg and Hitchcock have both said from the beginning that be best place to start for making a great movie is to pick a great script!
In 1999, Lola Rennt was excluded for nebulous reasons. The best films don't even get considered
EEAAO was too long after 10 minutes
Who said Terentino is great director? He made quite a lot of "garbage" movies!!
Trial of Chicago 7 was great. Not sure why he doesn’t think so.
Hi Karen I have a question for film courage to actors writers and especially directors
Here's the question:
Can directors be only translators for screenwriters's vision ? And why? 🤍
If this question is already asked then I would appreciate receiving the link . Thanks 🤍
Eric Webber doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. Very few people can talk for this long without saying anything meaningful or interesting.
Yeah listen to the rando making commentary about the people that are actually making successful films. lol
I think .. celebrities need to slap comedians in the Oscars to win an Oscar.. look at will smith..he's a terrible actor only knows how to shout with feelings..but he won an Oscar.
Just put a real great director playing some ethnic/gender topic bullshit and you'll break the record.
QT got where he is because of Harvey Weinstein’s actions
I can no longer listen without committing. EVERY major director says the script is the most important first step of a project, and you cannot save a bad script with any amount of direction or editing. You can make major re-writes and possible save a mediocre movie, as is the case for "Payback" with Mel Gibson.The original was good, but the re-write was amazing. They added about 15 scenes and several major actors to save the film.
Every great filmmaker states that a film is written three times: once in the writing, once in direction and once in the editing and post. The writing, direction and editing all need to be an amazing effort to make an amazing movie.
Also, directing IS NOT the most important part - see above.
Lastly, virtually every great movie has conflict and subtext (Aaron Soaking - "What do the characters want, and what's in the way". Almost no terrible movies have adequate subtext or conflict. Hierarchically, you MUST have the qualities to attempt to make something watchable. I call my key to writing the "Breaking Bad Rule": If there are two or more characters in a scene, there is conflict between hem, 95% of the time. This is not an accident.
Respectfully. Nolan and Tarantino make films for themselves and what they would enjoy. I can’t blame them I enjoy them as they are.
What are you talking about? They are both commercial, big budget, directors. They may both be “quirky”, but neither are making auteur movies, only for themselves. You are falling for MARKETING.