|
Post by franklin on Nov 11, 2021 21:55:36 GMT
Yeah, Anderson definitely needs a big commercial hit. He needs to work with actors like Leo or Denzel, or why not both? Lool.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 11, 2021 22:03:20 GMT
Yeah, Anderson definitely needs a big commercial hit. He needs to work with actors like Leo or Denzel, or why not both? Lool. He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 11, 2021 22:34:33 GMT
Yeah, Anderson definitely needs a big commercial hit. He needs to work with actors like Leo or Denzel, or why not both? Lool. He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. He needs it for his reputation. He's increasingly become an "insulated by film Twitter/audiences don't give a shit about him" director, and that's going to be damning in the future. Like, make one damn movie post-Boogie Nights that masses are engaged with, that people don't find meandering, droning, unfocused, etc. It's like if every QT film post-Pulp Fiction was a nigh plotless exercise like OUATIH or worse, with no Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, etc. PTA's problem is he can't hide in the "ultimate auteur" category because people like David Lynch exist, and a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Dr. are both way more entertaining than his work post-Boogie Nights, and way more artistically accomplished. He's in a No Man's Land of pretentious arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 11, 2021 22:42:02 GMT
He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. He needs it for his reputation. He's increasingly become an "insulated by film Twitter/audiences don't give a shit about him" director, and that's going to be damning in the future. Like, make one damn movie post-Boogie Nights that masses are engaged with, that people don't find meandering, droning, unfocused, etc. It's like if every QT film post-Pulp Fiction was a nigh plotless exercise like OUATIH or worse, with no Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, etc. PTA's problem is he can't hide in the "ultimate auteur" category because people like David Lynch exist, and a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Dr. are both way more entertaining than his work post-Boogie Nights, and way more artistically accomplished. He's in a No Man's Land of pretentious arrogance. Says you.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 11, 2021 22:47:47 GMT
Yeah, Anderson definitely needs a big commercial hit. He needs to work with actors like Leo or Denzel, or why not both? Lool. He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. futuretrunks kinda got it in one. PTA is a speciality item. A limited selection of cinephiles, critics and people who hand out awards will fawn over anything he does, but his penetration of popular culture is extremely limited. He does not matter to audiences....like at all. I guess that's fine if you just want film buffs to arse lick you, but it's hard for him to be in the overall league of the Scorsrses, Tarantinos etc, who have all that cinephile/critics/awards stuff, but also truly penetrated popular culture and audiences (and no matter how much people want to claim that doesn't matter....it does!). Even Spike Lee, with few massive box office hits in his career, has penetrated popular culture in a way PTA could never even imagine. In terms of legacy, if PTA wants to be more than someone that only a limited selection of cinephiles even know by name, he could stand to do work that gains more commercial recognition.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 11, 2021 22:51:38 GMT
He needs it for his reputation. He's increasingly become an "insulated by film Twitter/audiences don't give a shit about him" director, and that's going to be damning in the future. Like, make one damn movie post-Boogie Nights that masses are engaged with, that people don't find meandering, droning, unfocused, etc. It's like if every QT film post-Pulp Fiction was a nigh plotless exercise like OUATIH or worse, with no Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, etc. PTA's problem is he can't hide in the "ultimate auteur" category because people like David Lynch exist, and a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Dr. are both way more entertaining than his work post-Boogie Nights, and way more artistically accomplished. He's in a No Man's Land of pretentious arrogance. Says you. Sure. I admit I'm probably the most vociferously negative PTA commentator on the net besides that LastSnowKing person on Reddit. I just honestly believe there's something really off with his career. And I get more pugnacious the more people seem to deny what I'm talking about. People admitting they were kind of bored with a movie and giving it 4 stars on letterboxd doesn't sit well with me. There is a real PTA bubble.
|
|
|
Post by michael128 on Nov 11, 2021 23:10:24 GMT
Saoirse Ronan is objectively #1.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 11, 2021 23:29:05 GMT
He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. He needs it for his reputation. He's increasingly become an "insulated by film Twitter/audiences don't give a shit about him" director, and that's going to be damning in the future. Like, make one damn movie post-Boogie Nights that masses are engaged with, that people don't find meandering, droning, unfocused, etc. It's like if every QT film post-Pulp Fiction was a nigh plotless exercise like OUATIH or worse, with no Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, etc. PTA's problem is he can't hide in the "ultimate auteur" category because people like David Lynch exist, and a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Dr. are both way more entertaining than his work post-Boogie Nights, and way more artistically accomplished. He's in a No Man's Land of pretentious arrogance. One day there's going to be a big reveal and we're all going to find out PTA ran over your dog or slept with your girlfriend or something.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 11, 2021 23:29:35 GMT
Saoirse Ronan is objectively #1. Someone I can get behind stanning.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 11, 2021 23:33:41 GMT
He needs it for his reputation. He's increasingly become an "insulated by film Twitter/audiences don't give a shit about him" director, and that's going to be damning in the future. Like, make one damn movie post-Boogie Nights that masses are engaged with, that people don't find meandering, droning, unfocused, etc. It's like if every QT film post-Pulp Fiction was a nigh plotless exercise like OUATIH or worse, with no Kill Bills, Inglourious Basterds, etc. PTA's problem is he can't hide in the "ultimate auteur" category because people like David Lynch exist, and a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Dr. are both way more entertaining than his work post-Boogie Nights, and way more artistically accomplished. He's in a No Man's Land of pretentious arrogance. One day there's going to be a big reveal and we're all going to find out PTA ran over your dog or slept with your girlfriend or something. No, I just think he's an underachiever who's way overpraised/overrevered, and I'm not here for it. It's really that simple. Where I clash with some folks is because I don't back down at all. Plenty of people who think Inherent Vice is unwatchable won't even open their mouths to say it out of intimidation, or who thought Phantom Thread had a great score but a kind of undercooked narrative (and won't say that), or whatever. I just say what I think, and it bothers some people.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Nov 12, 2021 2:11:36 GMT
He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. futuretrunks kinda got it in one. PTA is a speciality item. A limited selection of cinephiles, critics and people who hand out awards will fawn over anything he does, but his penetration of popular culture is extremely limited. He does not matter to audiences....like at all. I guess that's fine if you just want film buffs to arse lick you, but it's hard for him to be in the overall league of the Scorsrses, Tarantinos etc, who have all that cinephile/critics/awards stuff, but also truly penetrated popular culture and audiences (and no matter how much people want to claim that doesn't matter....it does!). Even Spike Lee, with few massive box office hits in his career, has penetrated popular culture in a way PTA could never even imagine. In terms of legacy, if PTA wants to be more than someone that only a limited selection of cinephiles even know by name, he could stand to do work that gains more commercial recognition. I feel like PTA needs to do his own " Inside Man" so to say, as in him directing a more commercially minded film, that he also didn't write himself. Most of his movies outside of Inherent Vice have actually performed reasonably well at the box office, given the kind of films that they are, and with the way things are right now, there's no guaranteed he'll even be offered at down the middle thriller like that, but still if he wants to keep making movies the way he does, he may have at least one "meat and potatoes", sort of flick? Plus given the kind of films that he enjoys every year, a lot of them being more mainstream casual appealing flicks, I don't think the man would exactly would reject the idea of directing a studio flick immediately.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Nov 12, 2021 3:44:59 GMT
He doesn't need anything. The man has been able to make any film he's wanted to with no real artistic compromise since Day 1, and his films are critical successes (one of which is routinely cited as one of the Top 3 films of the century, if not #1). A commercial hit would be nice, as it would for anyone, but PTA doesn't need it. futuretrunks kinda got it in one. PTA is a speciality item. A limited selection of cinephiles, critics and people who hand out awards will fawn over anything he does, but his penetration of popular culture is extremely limited. He does not matter to audiences....like at all. I guess that's fine if you just want film buffs to arse lick you, but it's hard for him to be in the overall league of the Scorsrses, Tarantinos etc, who have all that cinephile/critics/awards stuff, but also truly penetrated popular culture and audiences (and no matter how much people want to claim that doesn't matter....it does!). Even Spike Lee, with few massive box office hits in his career, has penetrated popular culture in a way PTA could never even imagine. In terms of legacy, if PTA wants to be more than someone that only a limited selection of cinephiles even know by name, he could stand to do work that gains more commercial recognition. Scorsese's movies took years to reach pop culture status. Movies like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas did not make their presence known in the box office but through home video and he was assisted in that by De Niro becoming a major star. Scorsese for much of his career was making a movie every other year, with all of those post- Taxi Driver either barely making their budget back (only listed production budgets so not even counting promotion) or outright flopping, until he finally had a studio blockbuster in Cape Fear. Then he went from casting one of the biggest stars in De Niro to the biggest star in DiCaprio. Even if PTA never has a blockbuster, I don't really think it's hurting him that much. Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood have had very healthy lives post-release and it's not like PTA is obscure - the dude gets invited to late night shows to promote his movies and will be involved in any major publication or critics list of "best directors" or "best movies of the past ____ years." If the issue is about him not reaching wide audiences and that hurting him long-term; well, I'd be surprised if most people have seen Citizen Kane or Rashomon but I seriously doubt those movies are going to fade into the ether anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 12, 2021 6:09:20 GMT
futuretrunks kinda got it in one. PTA is a speciality item. A limited selection of cinephiles, critics and people who hand out awards will fawn over anything he does, but his penetration of popular culture is extremely limited. He does not matter to audiences....like at all. I guess that's fine if you just want film buffs to arse lick you, but it's hard for him to be in the overall league of the Scorsrses, Tarantinos etc, who have all that cinephile/critics/awards stuff, but also truly penetrated popular culture and audiences (and no matter how much people want to claim that doesn't matter....it does!). Even Spike Lee, with few massive box office hits in his career, has penetrated popular culture in a way PTA could never even imagine. In terms of legacy, if PTA wants to be more than someone that only a limited selection of cinephiles even know by name, he could stand to do work that gains more commercial recognition. Scorsese's movies took years to reach pop culture status. Movies like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas did not make their presence known in the box office but through home video and he was assisted in that by De Niro becoming a major star. Scorsese for much of his career was making a movie every other year, with all of those post- Taxi Driver either barely making their budget back (only listed production budgets so not even counting promotion) or outright flopping, until he finally had a studio blockbuster in Cape Fear. Then he went from casting one of the biggest stars in De Niro to the biggest star in DiCaprio. Even if PTA never has a blockbuster, I don't really think it's hurting him that much. Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood have had very healthy lives post-release and it's not like PTA is obscure - the dude gets invited to late night shows to promote his movies and will be involved in any major publication or critics list of "best directors" or "best movies of the past ____ years." If the issue is about him not reaching wide audiences and that hurting him long-term; well, I'd be surprised if most people have seen Citizen Kane or Rashomon but I seriously doubt those movies are going to fade into the ether anytime soon. Like I said, penetrating pop culture isn't always about having a bunch of massive commercial hits. This is why I used Spike Lee as an example as someone who managed it mostly without that (though he's still had many bigger hits and more accessible films than PTA).. He marketed himself as a persona throughout his whole career, and it's why he is arguably a household name as a director, even if many people who know who he is might not have seen a Spike Lee film. He made himself matter.PTA just doesn't matter to audiences. He doesn't need a blockbuster, but legacy-wise, he needs to matter. He's not marketed himself like someone like Lee, and his films generally cater to the speciality/award market. The Scorsese comparison doesn't really feel convincing, imho. A lot of Scorsrses earlier or mid-career iconic films did middling or mediocre box office, but as you say through ancillary markets like home video, became pop culture staples . But that was a much different time, when far less content was available to the masses. In an age where we are oversaturated with content in pop culture, film and TV, that is simply not going to happen for PTA. There Will Be Blood will never have the pop culture relevance or cache of Goodfellas, no matter how many critics lists it makes. It's had nearly 15 years to make a real dent in popular consciousness, and it's still mostly a critics/film buffs thing. No one in a barber shop is going to be waxing lyrical about There Will Be Blood, like they would about Goodfellas, Scarface or Training Day. Things like Citizen Kane were able to build up their pop culture capital in a different age, where there were not 100 streaming services pumping out new content every day vying for people's or medias attention. That wouldn't happen today. PTA can't rely on how things used to work, because the world has changed drastically. People have way too many options in terms of entertainment for his films to build pop culture capital over time in the way films used to in the home video era and before.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Nov 12, 2021 6:28:11 GMT
To me PTA is like Malick. Those guys that are not known to most people, but have become so big among the audience that do know them that it's become boring, making them mostly entry level names. Someone who knows nothing about films making an attempt to know films doesn't take too long before stumbling upon PTA and Malick. They're like the Joy Division and Pixies of movies. Those bands that bypassed many people in the 80s but among the contingent that do know them... they've become too big that they're entry level.
Personally, I'll take Coppola, Scorsese, and Hitchcock over Malick and PTA. The first group were among some of the most well known directors of their day. But like pupdurcs said, it's a different era. If you're acclaimed in the 60s and 70s you are going to be known. If you're acclaimed in the last 30 some years, you're not necessarily gonna be known. It's the same with music. In the 80s is where big and acclaim started separating a little bit, for both mediums.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 12, 2021 11:24:32 GMT
futuretrunks kinda got it in one. PTA is a speciality item. A limited selection of cinephiles, critics and people who hand out awards will fawn over anything he does, but his penetration of popular culture is extremely limited. He does not matter to audiences....like at all. I guess that's fine if you just want film buffs to arse lick you, but it's hard for him to be in the overall league of the Scorsrses, Tarantinos etc, who have all that cinephile/critics/awards stuff, but also truly penetrated popular culture and audiences (and no matter how much people want to claim that doesn't matter....it does!). Even Spike Lee, with few massive box office hits in his career, has penetrated popular culture in a way PTA could never even imagine. In terms of legacy, if PTA wants to be more than someone that only a limited selection of cinephiles even know by name, he could stand to do work that gains more commercial recognition. Scorsese's movies took years to reach pop culture status. Movies like Taxi Driver and Goodfellas did not make their presence known in the box office but through home video and he was assisted in that by De Niro becoming a major star. Scorsese for much of his career was making a movie every other year, with all of those post- Taxi Driver either barely making their budget back (only listed production budgets so not even counting promotion) or outright flopping, until he finally had a studio blockbuster in Cape Fear. Then he went from casting one of the biggest stars in De Niro to the biggest star in DiCaprio. Even if PTA never has a blockbuster, I don't really think it's hurting him that much. Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood have had very healthy lives post-release and it's not like PTA is obscure - the dude gets invited to late night shows to promote his movies and will be involved in any major publication or critics list of "best directors" or "best movies of the past ____ years." If the issue is about him not reaching wide audiences and that hurting him long-term; well, I'd be surprised if most people have seen Citizen Kane or Rashomon but I seriously doubt those movies are going to fade into the ether anytime soon. Exactly this ^.......this "reaching wide audiences" thing is a delusion that movies "matter" exactly like they did in the past and that movie stars are the same thing as they were in the past. Nah...... At just 51 with 9 movies - PTA has an unrestricted final cut, where he writes and directs and controls his own projects and has studios salivating to work with him in anything - even stuff that's "apparently" as minor as a "teen" movie starring such cinema icons as (um) Cooper Hoffman and Alana Haim. DiCaprio ................is the one PTA will work with - because PTA is not really Malick, he's far more in touch with a certain kind of US pop culture than that - maybe not mass culture - but still he's not aloof.........he's far more like Altman than he is Malick ........... Altman worked with Newman in 2 starring vehicles - the worlds biggest star and its maverick director who were both in the same age range. Newman is the precursor in a lot of ways for DiCaprio more than any other actor .......I'd be willing to bet that when that happens ........it will be DiCaprio (maybe) chasing him about as much as it's PTA chasing DiCap ....... I'd guess if PTA read this thread (um) he'd think "needing" his very own Inside Man or Training Day would make him vaguely ill - despite his affinity for the lead actor of those films - those movies are product - and I like both (they are 7's) but come on - it's exactly what he doesn't want - that would be to ask an idiosyncratic filmmaker, and absolute control freak with artistic pretension to lose or at least sacrifice the exact qualities that made him special in the first place........if you are going to say "what he needs" (highly dubious that he needs anything at all btw) it's maybe .............. maybe a "Fargo" - the Coens 6th film btw - a film that only the Coens could make, made money, holds up as a work of Art (not money!) and that subverts an established genre while making no concession at all to a "movie star's iconography". PTA has shown you exactly who he is ........9 times now for 25 years.......believe him ..........
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 12, 2021 12:29:40 GMT
After all the endless Denzel/Pacino arguments this might be the most batshit thread development for me. PTA doesn't matter because people aren't discussing his movies in barbershops...PTA needs to do a commercial genre film...oy vey.
It's all so simple: as long as he has this wonderful opportunity to get his movies financed even if they don't make too much money, he needs only one thing - to seize it. Not to sell out, not to do random paycheck stuff but to just keep on doing what he's doing because there are plenty of people interested in his artistic voice and in his cinema. They may not be mainstream crowds but it's a sizeable bunch. Plus he's clearly well-liked in the industry which also matters enormously. And if his movies don't reach the status of Goodfellas (so few do anyway) and aren't talked about in barbershops...who gives a fuck? I'm kind of reminded of Rohmer here - he was never the most well-known guy of the New Wave movement, his movies never really became big hits or known-to-everyone legendary classics and yet he's amassed a wonderful body of work which slowly but surely continues to interest people who are interested in cinema. And that enduring legacy, even if it's not wide-reaching, is something that to me seems far more important that a couple of one-time mainstream hits.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 12, 2021 12:51:52 GMT
After all the endless Denzel/Pacino arguments this might be the most batshit thread development for me. PTA doesn't matter because people aren't discussing his movies in barbershops..PTA needs to do a commercial genre film...oy vey. It's all so simple: as long as he has this wonderful opportunity to get his movies financed even if they don't make too much money, he needs only one thing - to seize it. Not to sell out, not to do random paycheck stuff but to just keep on doing what he's doing because there are plenty of people interested in his artistic voice and in his cinema. They may not be mainstream crowds but it's a sizeable bunch. Plus he's clearly well-liked in the industry which also matters enormously. And if his movies don't reach the status of Goodfellas (so few do anyway) and aren't talked about in barbershops...who gives a fuck? I'm kind of reminded of Rohmer here - he was never the most well-known guy of the New Wave movement, his movies never really became big hits or known-to-everyone legendary classics and yet he's amassed a wonderful body of work which slowly but surely continues to interest people who are interest in cinema. And that enduring legacy, even if it's not wide-reaching, is something that to me seems far more important that a couple of one-time mainstream hits. That's a bit reductive. A more pretentious way of putting it is his films do not reach the zeitgeist, with the possible exception of Boogie Nights, but I think even that film's relevance has somewhat faded over time. People remember it as the film where Marky-Mark wore a giant prosthetic dick, but I don't see it as a massive classic or anything. As I said, if PTA is happy with that potentially limited legacy as just someone who is appreciated by selective cinephiles, then more power to him. But we spend so much time discussing the most important directors, and most of them haven't just sparked in interest with cinephiles or industry folk, but have reached zeitgeist over their careers beyond that limited niche. Hitchcock, Spielberg, Scorsese , Tarantino, Nolan etc. PTA's lack of that amongst the peers people try to place him in similar company to is notable and something people shouldn't be afraid to broach, nor should his fans take offense that it might be perceived by some as a limiting factor for his overall legacy. If the guy himself is happy with being a more Oscar friendly Jim Jarmusch (and I like Jarmusch) then good for him I guess.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,717
Likes: 4,403
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Nov 12, 2021 13:01:03 GMT
Think I might have suffered severe brain damage from reading some of the posts in this thread. This anti-art rhetoric is fucking disgusting, although not entirely surprising.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 12, 2021 13:10:45 GMT
Think I might have suffered severe brain damage from reading some of the posts in this thread. This anti-art rhetoric is fucking disgusting, although not entirely surprising. Jesus Christ, you're easily offended aren't you! Relax...it's just a healthy debate. Some people on on different sides of the fence, but at least it's a real discussion with interesting points raised on all sides. And no one got overly sensitive about it. Well, till you.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 12, 2021 13:18:49 GMT
After all the endless Denzel/Pacino arguments this might be the most batshit thread development for me. PTA doesn't matter because people aren't discussing his movies in barbershops...PTA needs to do a commercial genre film...oy vey. It's all so simple: as long as he has this wonderful opportunity to get his movies financed even if they don't make too much money, he needs only one thing - to seize it. Not to sell out, not to do random paycheck stuff but to just keep on doing what he's doing because there are plenty of people interested in his artistic voice and in his cinema. They may not be mainstream crowds but it's a sizeable bunch. Plus he's clearly well-liked in the industry which also matters enormously. And if his movies don't reach the status of Goodfellas (so few do anyway) and aren't talked about in barbershops...who gives a fuck? I'm kind of reminded of Rohmer here - he was never the most well-known guy of the New Wave movement, his movies never really became big hits or known-to-everyone legendary classics and yet he's amassed a wonderful body of work which slowly but surely continues to interest people who are interest in cinema. And that enduring legacy, even if it's not wide-reaching, is something that to me seems far more important that a couple of one-time mainstream hits. Exactly. PTA makes the films he wants to make. He's happy to do that, and he's enjoying a sweet spot most creative voices can't boast: he gets full and final cut on all of his projects and gets funding to do them. I also think it's interesting people think he should go out and do a commercial genre film when David Lynch famously did that and, by most accounts, failed, and yet people don't reckon he should do it again to be "remembered." Art is fickle. In fifty years, who's to say what will be held in high regard and what will drift into obscurity?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 12, 2021 13:25:07 GMT
After all the endless Denzel/Pacino arguments this might be the most batshit thread development for me. PTA doesn't matter because people aren't discussing his movies in barbershops...PTA needs to do a commercial genre film...oy vey. It's all so simple: as long as he has this wonderful opportunity to get his movies financed even if they don't make too much money, he needs only one thing - to seize it. Not to sell out, not to do random paycheck stuff but to just keep on doing what he's doing because there are plenty of people interested in his artistic voice and in his cinema. They may not be mainstream crowds but it's a sizeable bunch. Plus he's clearly well-liked in the industry which also matters enormously. And if his movies don't reach the status of Goodfellas (so few do anyway) and aren't talked about in barbershops...who gives a fuck? I'm kind of reminded of Rohmer here - he was never the most well-known guy of the New Wave movement, his movies never really became big hits or known-to-everyone legendary classics and yet he's amassed a wonderful body of work which slowly but surely continues to interest people who are interest in cinema. And that enduring legacy, even if it's not wide-reaching, is something that to me seems far more important that a couple of one-time mainstream hits. Exactly. PTA makes the films he wants to make. He's happy to do that, and he's enjoying a sweet spot most creative voices can't boast: he gets full and final cut on all of his projects and gets funding to do them. I also think it's interesting people think he should go out and do a commercial genre film when David Lynch famously did that and, by most accounts, failed, and yet people don't reckon he should do it again to be "remembered." Art is fickle. In fifty years, who's to say what will be held in high regard and what will drift into obscurity? Lynch hit the zeitgeist in a massive way with Twin Peaks. That literally changed culture and TV. PTA has never come close to doing something that penetrated popular culture in a lasting way to that level. Lynch doesn't need to do anything again, because he'll always be remembered in wider cultural terms for Twin Peaks.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 12, 2021 14:24:08 GMT
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a filmmaker makes movies for their 'legacy' (how do they quantify such a thing?), and not because it's something they love doing, and can make a living off (we're talking here about someone who loves Adam Sandler movies, worked with Adam Sandler when he was somewhere near his peak, and instead of making a Sandler movie that would surely have cantered to box office glory... Made something else. I don't think pandering to people is among his interests).
The idea of a filmmakers legacy is surely only something that matters to film nerds, the very same ones who have determined he needs to appeal to people that couldn't care less about someones legacy in order to build a meaningful one?
If we're talking about success then that's a genuine thing that can be factually gauged. Anything beyond that is surely a fictitious concoction based on nothing but the personal whims of each individual.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 12, 2021 14:27:20 GMT
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a filmmaker makes movies for their 'legacy' (how do they quantify such a thing?), and not because it's something they love doing, and can make a living off (we're talking here about someone who loves Adam Sandler movies, worked with Adam Sandler when he was somewhere near his peak, and instead of making a Sandler movie that would surely have cantered to box office glory... Made something else. I don't think pandering to people is among his interests). The idea of a filmmakers legacy is surely only something that matters to film nerds, the very same ones who have determined he needs to appeal to people that couldn't care less about someones legacy in order to build a meaningful one? If we're talking about success then that's a genuine thing that can be factually gauged. Anything beyond that is surely a fictitious concoction based on nothing but the personal whims of each individual. Plenty of filmmakers care about legacy. Tarantino talks about his legacy all the time (ie he wants to make 10 great films then retire before he starts sucking or whatever)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 12, 2021 14:30:37 GMT
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a filmmaker makes movies for their 'legacy' (how do they quantify such a thing?), and not because it's something they love doing, and can make a living off (we're talking here about someone who loves Adam Sandler movies, worked with Adam Sandler when he was somewhere near his peak, and instead of making a Sandler movie that would surely have cantered to box office glory... Made something else. I don't think pandering to people is among his interests). The idea of a filmmakers legacy is surely only something that matters to film nerds, the very same ones who have determined he needs to appeal to people that couldn't care less about someones legacy in order to build a meaningful one? If we're talking about success then that's a genuine thing that can be factually gauged. Anything beyond that is surely a fictitious concoction based on nothing but the personal whims of each individual. Plenty of filmmakers care about legacy. Tarantino talks about his legacy all the time (ie he wants to make 10 great films then retire before he starts sucking or whatever) And PTA has said that he just wants to keep making movies till he drops, just like his hero and mentor, Robert Altman. He cares about the work. I'm sure he'd love to be remembered when he's gone, but it's clear he wants to work under his own terms.
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Nov 12, 2021 14:33:55 GMT
I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a filmmaker makes movies for their 'legacy' (how do they quantify such a thing?), and not because it's something they love doing, and can make a living off (we're talking here about someone who loves Adam Sandler movies, worked with Adam Sandler when he was somewhere near his peak, and instead of making a Sandler movie that would surely have cantered to box office glory... Made something else. I don't think pandering to people is among his interests). The idea of a filmmakers legacy is surely only something that matters to film nerds, the very same ones who have determined he needs to appeal to people that couldn't care less about someones legacy in order to build a meaningful one? If we're talking about success then that's a genuine thing that can be factually gauged. Anything beyond that is surely a fictitious concoction based on nothing but the personal whims of each individual. Plenty of filmmakers care about legacy. Tarantino talks about his legacy all the time (ie he wants to make 10 great films then retire before he starts sucking or whatever) Yes, I mean there are some, whenever someone talks about how they haven't made a western/comedy/sci-fi film yet, etc. I think that's them thinking about that sort of thing. QT is an anomaly though nobody is (at least outwardly) that much of a pretentious, self obsessed, borderline narcissistic dork. He's like the Daniel Day-Lewis of moviemakers.
|
|