>>>Who will have the better career when it's all said and
>done.
>
>^^^^this is the question.
>
>
>Because right now, I think Tarantino is on E of his creative
>tank (if he ever was creative), and he is rehashing his once
>cool/hip/slickster/filmgeek ideas and trying to pass them off
>as great, i.e. Death Proof. And next is his so-called "war
>epic" Inglorious Bastards. This sounds like it has the
>potential of a break or bust move for Tarantino.
>
>That rehashing of hipster jive sh*t is getting old. And if you
>can tell by Grindhouse's box-office sales, nobody really cares
>anymore. And the plea coppage is hilarious. I mean, some are
>even clowning media/critic darling Will Ferrell's Blades of
>Glory in defense of Grindhouse's lack of appeal. lol
>
>Tarantino has it made. He has the critics on his d*ck and he
>can do no wrong. He has a niche-type fanbase, that equated
>mainstream ticket sales (before Grindhouse).
>
>But I think Pulp Fiction was a blessing and a curse for
>Tarantino. Its not that great of a movie,although it has him
>set financially for the rest of his life and given him
>basically total creative freedom and independence. But the
>success of Pulp Fiction catapulting Tarantino as the critics
>darling, may ultimately be his downfall. What they praise as
>perfection, is actually a medicore and flawed way of directing
>movies. Tarantino was a hack who hit the jackpot.
>
>So when it is all said and done, if you take away the feet,the
>filmgeek trivia, the homages, and artificial and trivial
>dialogue of Tarantino, what do you really have?
>
>a medicore director, whose long-term career is in question.
>
>I think M. Night will do fine. He is legit. Critics hate him
>because he is good and M. Night wants to go down in history
>and be able to sit down at the table with the Speilbergs of
>cinema. Nah. Critics. The nerve of him? lol aint' having that.
>They gonna shoot him down every chance they get. But, like
>Spike Lee, M. Night ain't going away. When you are good, they
>may hate you, but they can't deny you.
>
>I think the real question is for Tarantino. As much praise as
>he gets, can he really sit at the table of Scorsese, Coppala,
>DePalma, Speilberg, Spike (yeah I said it) with his body of
>work?
>
>I think the answer is a resounding no.
>
>I think Rob Rodriguez has better a long-term future than
>Tarantino. I don't see Rob trying to sit at the table though
>of the big greats. He just trying get paid and make movies
>people can enjoy and not compartmentalize.
>
>But for Tarantino. You can only get over for so long, before
>you have to evolve. He has yet to do that yet. Maybe because
>he doesn't want to and is still basking in the glory of his
>unconditional love from crtics. Or maybe he doesn't evolve
>because he is incapable of doing so.