There’s so much whining here about how what Tarantino said is misunderstood, now from you—so now it’s a lack of “cultural impact” that he’s bemoaning? Which is rich given the pedigree of the stuff he’s churned out or the exploitation film genres he champions. Why be so precious about it? Pray tell what was really the last non-superhero film that had your elusive “cultural impact” cachet? This is getting to seem like the endless threads here in the music forum whining about the state of current rock music and how it isn’t a culturally-driving force anymore. Things do go in cycles. But because of a variety of factors at play (advances in home theater equipment, streaming, and a plethora of non-film entertainment choices), film isn’t the driving cultural medium that it once was. But I see no acknowledgement of these facts from you pedants. This thread has more illuminated and highlighted the would-be cinephile’s smugness and snobbery more than anything.
I’d say more than The Supranos-not to diminish the series-but HBO TV shows in general raised the bar.
This thread started because of two comments Tarantino made. One was about Marvel characters being the real stars and not necessarily building upon the careers of the people who play them. He didn't say these roles weren't expertly cast or well performed. He didn't say these movies weren't good. What he did say was echoed by Marvel actor Anthony Mackie a few years back and is relatively innocuous (and kind of obvious, to be honest) no matter who said it. The other thing he said was that we're in the midst of one of Hollywood's worst eras, whereby studios remain hyper-focused on building franchises while independent filmmakers scrape by to make low-budget tripe that doesn't render any notable impact or push the industry dial. Both these types of films are also frequently pandering to a concurrent ideological climate, which bootstraps creativity. As a result, we find ourselves in an overly calculated era where even the "risky" fare is largely safe, where mid-range content plays into formulaic genre tropes, and where serious adult drama has primarily migrated to television. As part of Tarantino's broader argument, he's pointed to times in the past when similar things have happened, namely the 1950s studio system and the post-Star Wars, post-Heaven's Gate 1980s studio era. With the current trend, he's primarily pointing to Marvel's massive success as the trigger that sent all the studios into their race for the next big franchise. Since he's basically describing the Marvel era (to use a general term) as being something of a nadir when it comes to artistic expression, people like yourself work themselves into a frenzy trying to provide rebuttals to points he's not actually making. Here are some questions and answers you help you further: Q: Is Tarantino saying that Marvel movies aren't good? A: I haven't seen him say that anywhere. He probably thinks some are really well done and others aren't. Q: Is Tarantino saying that good movies or good movie years don't exist? A: Not at all. I believe he's pointed to 2019 as being a particularly strong year. Q: What then is he talking about? A: He's talking about broader industry trends that end up defining a given era, even if there are exceptions. Q: What are some recent non-superhero movies that rendered the "elusive" cultural impact I refer to? A: Moonlight, Whiplash, Parasite, The Social Network, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, to name a few. From the last two years, probably none, which is part of his point (unless you want to count Top Gun: Maverick, which is akin to a superhero movie). Q: Does bringing up cultural impact equate to "bemoaning"? A: Cultural impact is a barometer of broader trends that inform content creators and end up defining eras--do you really not get how this works? Q: Is Tarantino ignoring the "variety of factors at play" that you describe? A: Not really. He's just making observations as they pertain to specific eras. He's highlighting theatrical films, in particular, but arguably not seeing anything revolutionary enough on streaming platforms to change his opinion. Q: Is Tarantino right that the pendulum will swing back toward the kind of marketplace that puts more emphasis on the kind of films that he and Scorsese champion? A: Maybe, maybe not. As you said, it's a different world out there and films don't hold the same place in the culture that they once did, in general. Q: Are the kind of movies that Tarantino and Scorsese champion still being made? A: Very much so--but no one is saying that they aren't. They were being made in the 1980s as well. Q: Who's being smug? A: No one can possibly be smugger than the person who thinks Tarantino makes films in order to drop N-bombs, thinks they know more about film history than he does, or thinks that Tarantino doesn't understand the current industry. Q: Why be so precious about exploitation films? A: Because the exploitation sub-genre tackled a number of prescient themes head-on (the same kind of themes that current movies tackle with kid's gloves), gave a voice to lesser-known actors and filmmakers, and provided a template for gratuitous and unfettered expression. They were also quite authentic in their delivery and completely untethered from studio expectations, regardless of quality (or lack thereof). That said, reducing Tarantino to his love of exploitation films is missing the point...again. The 1970s have plenty of popular movies that support his overall claims--the exploitation sub-genre need not enter the equation. Q: Is Tarantino right about it being the worst? A: When someone talks about the "worst" of anything it's going to be a matter of opinion, but again, he's not saying Marvel movies aren't good or even excellent (as far as I can tell). He's saying they're crafted with mass entertainment in mind, light on complex themes, and devoid of personal expression. He's not opposed to these things existing in cinema, but he does clearly value a marketplace that pushes the envelope on occasion. Q: Does the "pedigree" of movies that Tarantino churns out himself somehow contradict his sentiment? A: Only if you attempt to boil his work down to its gravest offenses while ignoring his unique visual style, lasting iconography, award-winning performances, quotable dialogue (sometimes), or attention to character detail. And I say this as someone who doesn't love all his output in the slightest. Q: Does this thread highlight cinephile "smugness"? A: As you attest, movies don't hold the same place in the culture anymore. Between that and the Internet, the "cinephile" has become something of an abstract concept. But the inability to address the actual content of Tarantino's argument seems to come moreover from people who can't see the blatant industry trends that are unfolding directly in front of their eyes or the ones that have unfolded in the past. There are comprehensive books written about the studio system, New Hollywood, and 1980s cinema. True smugness is countering each point from a knee-jerk position as opposed to at least considering the perspective of someone (Tarantino, that is) who probably knows a lot more about this stuff than you do.
Yes, but there weren't many decade-long HBO shows that pre-date MCU. @bopdd pointed out that GoT came after MCU had gotten rolling so it couldn't have been a factor (though the inclusion of Kit Harrington and Richard Madden in Eternals suggests some sort of influence there). I think Sopranos was really a game changer that "out-cinema'ed" the big screen, for lack of a better expression. It used the multi-season format to an advantage that movies, up until MCU's approach, had no answer for.
I agree. Along with The Wire, Deadwood, Oz, Band of Brothers, Six Feet Under, Boardwalk Empire, Rome, From The Earth To The Moon all,of which had terrific production values, larger-than-life production worthy of the big screen.
Oh, I just thought of one from this year: Everything Everywhere All At Once. I didn't personally like this movie but its cultural impact was rather substantial. At the very least, it cemented A24 as the foremost independent production house (along with maybe Blumhouse) and has probably also set up the directors to pursue whatever project they want next.
Yes and Hurt/Ross has been in the MCU for 13 years, basically since the beginning. Playing an important part, causing the Civil War storyline, having a far, far longer presence than Black Panther, who, while having his own movie, was a supporting character in just two other movies. (With his part in Endgame being so neglectable I would count it more as a cameo) I liked Bosewick's portrayal of the character but no actor should be bigger than the part he plays. It sets a precedent in which a company either loses a character or comes across as hypocritical. I don't think "race" should be an argument whether to recast a role.
Quentin Tarantino is entitled to his opinion as is everyone else, I have nothing to add on that front. But if movie stars really did disappear (I have no idea if this is true of not) my life seems to be going on fine without them and I have not noticed their absence.
While I wouldn't hold up any of the MCU movies as great cinema, I do get a kick out of seeing a huge corporation spending and earning billions of dollars recreating the four-color pulp paper comic books I purchased as a middle-schooler for 25-35 cents . . . With my allowance I could afford six comic books. Seven if I saved the change from the previous week!
"Race" isn't the argument - it's importance to a community. And sorry, but claiming that Ross is as significant a character as T'challa just makes no sense. He's barely even a secondary character.
Showin' yer age there! I was an "Archie" boy as a kid and only owned a handful of Marvel/DCs until my teens. Summer 1981, I found a box with the 20-30 Marvel/DCs I owned, re-read 'em and just went nuts. For about 2 years, I was a Marvel/DC fiend - bought literally everything they published. Even used my early role as a journalist on my HS paper to get an invite to do interviews at Marvel's Manhattan offices. Anyway, comics were 50 cents in 1981 and went to 60 cents during my 2 years of obsession. I think they went to 65 cents after that, not 70, but not sure...
You guys are whippersnappers!!! When I was a kid, comics were 10 cents! 10 for a dollar! I remember how upset i was when they went to 12 cents! Honestly, even allowing for cost inflation, I feel bad for kids these days, they have to satisfy their 'super-hero' itch in other ways (games and movies). Don't seem right.
What QT said re: lack of stars was just recently rebutted by Samuel L Jackson, who has worked extensively with both QT and Marvel, so his opinion should carry more weight than Anthony Mackie. Samuel L. Jackson Challenges Quentin Tarantino Over Marvel Actors Being Movie Stars: Chadwick Boseman Is a Movie Star Samuel L. Jackson Fights Tarantino: Marvel Actors are Movie Stars - Variety As for the rest of your very smug rant, we ARE talking about Tarantino here. Quentin Tarantino who appeared in a movie with this very QT-monologue about the gay subtext in Top Gun. This is your arbiter of what high culture should be accepted? He never performed these riffs in films about Fellini, is what I'm saying. There are human stories at the center of the Marvel films--more than you or any of the modern snoberrati would ever give them credit for. Themes exploring loss, regret, identity, memory, grief, liberty, and mortality. Yes there's also lots of people in colorful costumes punching each other--but if it were just that, I doubt the MCU would have had much of the longevity it's had and still has. Some of my best theater experiences were both QT's films and the Marvel movies--and you'd prefer they were put into entertainment silos. Very boring and tedious mentality. You seem to be in a bit of denial about the mega-millions companies like Miramax spent to put QT and his films on the map (and yes, QT worked with questionable characters like Weinstein)--enough money spent on awards campaigns and promotion that probably comprise the budgets of several indie films combined. Maybe you should read Down And Dirty Pictures for more on that. Truth is there's no corollary to what Marvel have accomplished with the MCU, so references to the state of film in the 1950s and 1980s are merely straw man BS. I'd say the door for something like the MCU was partly kicked open by one of your would-be auteurs George Lucas, and the serial nature of Star Wars. Read a lot about that in Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. Lots of people, including his fellow filmmakers, were telling Lucas back then that what he was trying to do was kiddie crap. I'd say he proved them all wrong in the long run. And Lucas was influenced by--guess what?--comic books (Darth Vader is a ringer for Dr Doom), as well as by Westerns and Samurai. Still no acknowledgement from you or any of the film Gods that the film experience and cultural cachet has vastly moved on to cable/streaming and goes far deeper into character than most of their work. No, I'm supposed to be enthralled by 3 hours of Rick Dalton and his slide into irrelevancy, because you and QT deem it so. Something like Breaking Bad was very much informed by the visual style of Quentin, but as an entertainment experience, and for cultural impact, it's cumulatively far better and richer than anything Quentin has done in decades. Claiming I somehow "think(s) (I) know more about film history than he (QT) does", dude where are you even getting this stuff? Please keep your irrational gaslighting and gatekeeping to yourself, and I'll continue to enjoy The Sound Of Metal, Tick Tick..Boom, Minari, and The Trial Of the Chicago Seven along with the latest Black Panther flick and the next Spider-Man and Batman movies. Doesn’t sound like you understand why audiences love the Marvel films, and you certainly can't elucidate why they shouldn't. Better if you stick to your art house stuff.
It looks like Samuel Jackson—and you, for that matter—don't seem to understand the original inference. Tarantino isn't suggesting that these people aren't "movie stars" in some broad sense, he's suggesting that their performances as Marvel characters don't make them box office draws once they appear outside of the MCU...which is pretty easily verifiable. It's up to you whether or not you want to look into Tarantino's bona fides, not that I would expect you to. By the way: you are aware that he just came out with a book on cinema, right? Meanwhile, the gay subtext of Top Gun is more or less considered canonical by this point so nice job shooting yourself in the foot. And who said anything about "high" culture? You really don't understand any of this, do you? I can only presume you're referring to Scorsese's comments about Marvel because otherwise I have no idea who you're addressing. No one else is saying that Marvel doesn't deliver human stories or genuine emotional arcs (and brilliantly so, one might add). It has everything to do with the system that produces these films and not the films themselves. These are ultimately producer-made films no matter how much artistic credibility a director, writer, or actor might bring to the table. There are specific ideas that will simply not get through if the higher-ups don't want them to. Everything else you're saying in this paragraph has nothing to do with anything, frankly. Show me the part where I was in denial about Miramax spending. And we can pretend that the MCU has never had any "questionable characters" (cough, Joss Whedon, cough) if it makes you feel better. That sort of thing doesn't make a difference to me and has nothing to do with any of the points I've been making, points that you largely seem to misconstrue. I drew upon the 1950s and 1980s because those were the other two eras mentioned by QT. The 1950s is a corollary because the studio system of yore is akin to the conglomerate system of today. The 1980s is a corollary because it found studios largely turning away from auteurist fare in favor of huge tentpole productions or straightforward genre films. I didn't say these things were corollaries to Marvel, I said they were corollaries to the "Marvel era" (which I specifically denoted as an umbrella term)--keep up. As for the stuff about Lucas and "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," I'm not sure why you're bringing this up as if it's some sort of novel point. It's more or less one of the things I was suggesting earlier without resorting to specifics. When movies like "Jaws" and "Star Wars" were released, they were genuine auteurist visions, but their massive success caused subsequent industry changes. What acknowledgment are you looking for aside from the obvious acknowledgments I've already given? I've already stated that both major talent and certain types of entertainment migrated over to television, and adore shows like "Breaking Bad." But I'm not sure what bringing up television has to do with anything unless it's you're way of conceding that there's been a general drop in the quality of cinematic output. Tarantino was quite obviously talking about movies. I should reiterate that I don't love every QT film or even agree with all his opinions. I'm primarily responding to the two specific points he made that kicked off this thread. It's actually kind of incredible because you complain about the hamster wheel of this thread but keep missing the point over and over again. So just as I did above I'll do it here. Show me the place where I said Marvel movies aren't excellent or aren't worthy of fanfare or that the industry should only churn out "art house stuff." I'll wait.
I don’t think race was the only determining factor regarding recasting but the impact the actor/character had on their community. Given the big impact he made in the role as an actor and the film as a whole, I think it was the respectful thing to do. In Bose an’s case, he embodied the character and owned it.
Ah, keep moving the goalposts then. Which actors are even actual box office draws now? Brad Pitt is perhaps one of the few. And my point completely whooshed right over your head--that Tarantino was always obsessed with dissecting pop culture in his films. His and your comments throughout this thread truly, truly smack of calling Marvel crap pop culture (I believe you called them "cookie cutter" in a former comment), no matter how much you dissemble in each new comment or backtrack on your wording. BYes, I'm aware of his book. Ok? Every movie is made with a team of producers and financiers, and that may limit what a creative can put up onscreen. Glad you learned something new today. As much as you are trying to turn this into some David & Goliath kind of thing, most of what you are saying in that regard is preposterous and empty when it comes to the amount of money getting a film, any film, made, produced, promoted and distributed now. The movie business is all a machine, and to posture that Marvel are primarily "producer driven" when the stuff that was being churned out by Miramax didn't have some producer influence is quite naive. Also since you mentioned it, call me when Whedon has to go to court to get sentenced over his having a consensual relationship with an intern. Marvel movies / Marvel era, does your arbitrary denotation here particularly matter? I'm keeping up just fine while you're all over the place with whatever it is you think you're saying in your replies. No other franchise has had the type of ongoing narrative the MCU has had with 30 films, an ongoing interlocking story, so your comparisons to other eras in that regard are completely moot and irrelevant. Yet challenging movies are still being made, regardless of whether or not you clutch your pearls over the "cultural impact" they do or don't make. Your opinion or QT's opinion about whether they take enough "risks" or about the "a general drop in the quality of cinematic output" are just that, opinions. Dude, you don't even seem know what point you're even making. First it's "oh the studio system and franchises are to blame for the state of movies", then you move the goalposts to modern filmmakers not making a "cultural impact". You called comic film themes "cookie cutter" in an earlier post in this very thread. You're literally all over the place with this stuff so I couldn't care less at this point about your scatterbrained assertions. I'm sure you'll be doing even more back-tracking in your next response.
Driving home Tarantino's obvious point isn't moving the goalposts, it's...you know...addressing the content of what he was saying. Are you suggesting that he doesn't think people like Chris Pratt or Robert Downey Jr are movie stars either? By asking "what actors are box office draws now?" you're finally providing an actual rebuttal (congrats) to QT's initial contention. One could indeed attest that the argument he's making extends well outside the MCU to describe the modern blockbuster culture in general. However, Tarantino might reply that this is evidence of the effect that franchise-obsessed filmmaking has had on the industry at large, which would obvious wrangle Marvel back into the equation. Bear in mind that I don't really care about movie stars—I'm just explicating QT's point, which seems kind of self-evident. I'm not even sure he was saying it as a complaint--it may have just been an observation. On the other hand, he does come from a place where he's cast specific actors or actresses and then watched their careers take off as a result. "Cookie cutter themes" can still be germane, emotional, and clever. But they're going to fall within a certain paradigm. Cute but you're not saying anything that contradicts what I was saying. In fact, you're reinforcing it. Like I keep saying, we're in the middle of an era where studios have allocated the bulk of their resources toward building massive franchises. That means more money on the table and more control over content. Instead of looking to rebut points that I'm not making, you might actually try to figure out what it is I'm saying. Of course, producers wield influence across various studios, but some producers are trying to nurture a directorial vision while others are looking for technically proficient directors who can toe the company line. This stuff is like moviemaking 101. Regarding Whedon--it makes no difference to me whether or not you believe his multiple accusers. Or maybe you just make exceptions when it comes to your precious superhero directors or certain types of behaviors. You brought up Weinstein so I was merely making the point that potentially terrible people are everywhere in Hollywood and Marvel Studios is likely no exception. It really has no bearing on the discussion either way. Marvel is a studio. Marvel Era is being used the describe the last decade or so of cinema in general. Again, it would help if you actually drew some conclusions on your own here instead of simply looking to rebut. You inferred the drop in the quality of cinematic output because you keep bringing up the potential factors that have supplanted cinema's place in the culture. Our definitions of "challenging" and "cultural impact" must vary, whereas the smaller movies you mentioned in the previous post were neither challenging nor culturally impactful, in my opinion. You even asked me to name some examples of movies that were "culturally impactful" and I did, but because you're not actually interested in absorbing anything I'm saying, you've already moved on. But I think you should definitely drop some of those wicked "Minari" quotes at the next office party--people will immediately pick up on what you're saying. I've been saying the same thing over and over again but you don't want to lift the slightest finger to make any connections. It's the studios and production companies who hire the filmmakers and produce, market, and distribute the movies, and so the output of a given era will essentially boil down to broader studio trends. When the studio system and Hayes code collapsed in the 1960s, you saw the emergence of an entirely new type of mainstream filmmaking. And when movies like "Reservoir Dogs" and "Goodfellas" and "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" broke through in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it led to an era that kind of circled back to New Hollywood but also maintained the corporate studio model so you ended up with a healthy mix of franchise fare but also some "culturally impactful" auteurist statements. In the modern era, the studios have put the bulk of their weight behind building franchise fare. At the same time, a prevailing morality has made certain types of things more or less unacceptable in mainstream film. So you get a lot of franchise movies and relatively standard genre fare on one side, and then a slew of independent stuff on the other side that gets little to no exposure and renders almost no cultural impact. Streaming platforms occasionally explore the middle ground or push experimental content but they don't seem to be at a point yet where they can nurture a truly impactful artistic statement on the level of something like "Reservoir Dogs." As of this post, A24 seems to be leading that charge (though I think their stuff is largely overrated). But Tarantino isn't so fatalistic as to think that there aren't exceptions to the model or potential changes in the tide. And again, when I say "cookie cutter," I mean that the themes in Marvel movies are inevitably going to fall within a certain window of permissiveness. You're not going to find genuinely transgressive themes in a Marvel movie, period. Sometimes a movie will brush up against philosophical or psychological issues but it's always through an easily digestible lens. If you want me to replace "cookie cutter" with something like "limited" and "audience-friendly" and "morally permissible" or whatever, then fine. I completely agree that Marvel pulls off massively entertaining stuff with brilliant character arcs and genuinely emotional themes. I also thought the TV series "WandaVision" was legitimately interesting and clever (just throwing that out there--I was really impressed by that show). In fact, I would even go as far as to say that Marvel movies have been some of the best and most culturally impactful movies of the last decade. And yet none of that really contradicts Tarantino's general point.
You joke about Minari, and it may not have had any cultural impact in your circles, but it perhaps did have far more impact for a first-generation immigrant seeing that story on the screen. I don’t see where the movie you mentioned about the Facebook guy has had any meaningful lasting cultural impact. But speaking of Fincher, he is an example of one filmmaker that has made streaming work exceptionally well for his artistic vision, particularly with Mindhunter which was superb. Anyway, the case of unfiltered creative vision getting to the screen and the case of a film having lasting cultural impact can and should probably be two separate discussions. And as for the complaints of the auteurs, I don’t see a lot that’s daring creatively about Scorsese making a mob movie with DeNiro again for instance, and I’m not sure what its place in the cultural context is, but regardless I really enjoyed The Irishman.
"A movie for every niche demographic" might as well be the motto of the entire indie market of the last two years. Anyway, I think you're running a little too far in one direction with the word "culture" when you bring up "Minari." I'm referring to cultural impact in the broadest sense in that movies can often represent cultural moments when they're released and also have lasting cultural value over time. It's really more about the iconography of a film than it is about the film's ability to connect with specific types of viewers. If I say "very nice" with a certain inflection then you immediately think of Borat--that's cultural impact. If I hum the theme song to "Back to the Future," you know exactly what tune I'm humming. These are but minor examples whereas both films clearly had more impact than a few catchphrases or some music. As for "The Social Network"--that movie was pretty much everywhere at the time of its release and it continues to be rewatched. It tackled a subject that's only grown more relevant in the time since, introduced at least two breakout stars (Andrew Garfield and Armie Hammer, though obviously Hammer is no longer a star), featured an iconic score, and offered up a handful of memorable quotes that you could say aloud without having to explain yourself, among other things. It also helped usher in an entire subgenre of TV shows and maybe some movies the about the rise (and fall) of overzealous personalities, ranging from Elizabeth Holmes to Anna Delvey to Adam Neumann to Travis Kalanick. This is what I mean by impact. Bringing up "The Irishman" as if it's some sort of rebuttal doesn't make much sense to me. For starters, I think that movie is easily second-rate Scorsese and that the director's last masterpiece (or close to it) was "The Wolf of Wall Street." Secondly, I never said that just because you have an auteur behind the camera you're going to get a creatively daring piece of work. If anything, I said that Netflix doesn't appear to have the infrastructure to nurture challenging projects and so they just kind of let directors do whatever they want, which often leads to inferior results.
Seems you are taking me a little too literally in my comments about the “cultural impact” of Minari—come on, you can make your points without willfully misrepresenting me. I’m in a bar tonight that’s showing Stand By Me on their in-house screen tonight—what are the odds of Hollywood making a major motion picture like that now? The odds are nil, but I don’t think you can lay that solely at the feet of Marvel Studios. The industry has changed, and the model for how people consume movies has changed; and what makes a major feature now is more likely to end up as a streaming original. The cachet of the silver screen isn’t what it once was.
I'm not sure how I misrepresented you and it certainly wasn't willful, but my apologies if I misconstrued your implication. I don't really disagree with what you're saying here nor do blame Marvel any more than I would blame "Star Wars" for the kind of movie-making that followed it. Something worked incredibly well, other studios followed suit, and it helped shape an era. And like you mention, there are also a ton of other factors at play, including streaming originals, better television production, societal values, and the conglomerate ecosystem that seems to have swallowed up a number of these movie studios. I'm not so fatalistic as to think every generation can't have its own version of something like "Stand By Me," whereas movies are often of their time and place anyway. Tarantino made a remark and I'm explicating that remark. It's one I happen to agree with in that I think the last decade of filmmaking has been oversaturated in some ways, completely fractured in others, and relatively anemic in terms of what you called "creatively daring" pieces of work. But with the right movies or the failure of certain blockbusters, another era might begin (if it hasn't already).
Tarantino, in the interview I saw with Tom Segura, actually said that if he was a young guy he would have loved the MCU movies. He's just at a different stage in his life. Not an attack on MCU films at all. The whole "movie star" comment is also blown way out of proportion as other people have already pointed out. Is this a good MCU public relations strategy? All this manufactured outrage at smug cinephiles has the whiff of public relations to it. (not at all saying that the OP is getting paid to do this -- no doubt you're sincere; but, if I were a public relations guy for the studio making MCU, this would probably be an angle to exploit.)
I actually don't doubt that--I saw QT on Joe Rogan last summer (not at all an endorsement of D-bag Rogan, he occasionally gets good guests however), JR asked him if he'd ever do a comic film and he basically said he doesn't want to work on someone else's story or IP at this stage in his life or career; he did mention being particularly enthralled with Gerry Conway's run on Conan The Barbarian back in the 1970s. Yeah, I'm literally just a lifelong fan--seeing these characters brought to life on the big screen is far exceeding even my wildest childhood hopes. Best we had for live-action Marvel when I was growing up was Bixby's Hulk, or the very dull Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man series of the 70s. The MCU stuff is definitely of a moment--they've seized it for all its worth. With the money they're raking in, they certainly don't need PR or to even justify why they're still making them. I do wonder though when or how it will all run out of steam.
It’s just the weekly dogpile on Tarantino. There’s a non-trival amount of people on this board who dislike him, don’t get most of his films and use every opportunity to dogpile on him for anything convenient. It’s exhausting and becomes apparent when someone like Knox tries to have a reasonable conversation and the responses are all petty, pedantic wordplay that always comes back to some variation of ‘QT sucks, he should stop talking’. Marvel is just the weapon of choice of this week’s flogging.
