Best movie directors of the past 20 years: Scorcese or Tarantino?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I think Scorcese for now. He has written my favorite movie, Goodfellas, and has other amazing gems such as The Departed.

Tarantino has talent and has an interesting taste in movies. His dark humor always makes me crack up. Watching Django Unchained was an unique experience. I never seen a movie like that and the subtle humor was hilarious especially Samuel Jackson's character. Leo was phenomenal as well. Tarantino is amazing and he's a few great movies away from matching Scorcese's legacy in my opinion.

Both of them have different ways of directing which I think makes this discussion a quite unique one.

Now it's your turn to state your opinion :applause:

[KingBeasley08]

Scorsese is better.

[SugarHill]

I find more replay value and enjoyment out of Tarantino films.

[ZeN]

Tarantino is a better overall creator. He directs, writes and produces his films. Hes versatile in his direction and natural in his storytelling. Also his filmography is strong in quality and he has no bad feature film. He hasnt directed a musical. Instead of making straight comedies, he infuses comedic aspects in his stories, regardless of the genre of his films. Scorcese often gets praised despite his faults while Tarantino succeeds despite getting overly scrutinized and criticized. Also Tarantino gets crazy brilliant work out of a plethora of actors. While Scorcese sticks to actors he works well with, so as to lower the risk of directorial failure. Tarantino on the other hand is known for reviving careers and taking talent to a whole nother level.

[Im Still Ballin]

Mike Bay.

[SugarHill]

Tarantino is a better overall creator. He directs, writes and produces his films. Hes more versatile in his direction and natural in his storytelling. Also his filmography is strong in quality and he has no bad feature films. He hasnt directed a musical and instead of making straight comedies instead he infuses comedic aspects regardless of the genre of his films. Scorcese often gets praised despite his faults while Tarantino succeeds despite getting overly scrutinized and critized.
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g322/Sugarsandrainbows/GIFs/e6u4ok.gif

[~primetime~]

I prefer Tarantino

like them both though

[LJJ]

What an odd time frame to pick, missing out on Tarantino's masterpiece (Pulp fiction) and also Scorsese's (Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver).

Over their whole careers it's Scorsese, obviously.

Over the past 20 years...I'm still gonna take Scorsese. Even though his movies don't always hit the spot for me personally, I just feel you get a little more range out of Scorsese. You can watch a Scorsese movie a few nights in a row and get something different each time. I always like Tarantino's stuff, but all his movies are variations of the same thing.

[KingBeasley08]

What an odd time frame to pick, missing out on Tarantino's masterpiece (Pulp fiction) and also Scorsese's (Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver).

Over their whole careers it's Scorsese, obviously.

Over the past 20 years...I'm still gonna take Scorsese. Even though his movies don't always hit the spot for me personally, I just feel you get a little more range out of Scorsese. You can watch a Scorsese movie a few nights in a row and get something different each time. I always like Tarantino's stuff, but all his movies are variations of the same thing.
Feel the same way. Hugo was a freaking kids movie and it was up there with Scorsese's best work

[DonDadda59]

Tarantino is a one trick pony. His one trick may be very good, but nonetheless- there's not much variety there. It's all over the top spaghetti western style no matter what the story/setting. Scorsese has slowed down some in recent years but I'll take his filmography any day of the week over Q's.

[KevinNYC]

What an odd time frame to pick, missing out on Tarantino's masterpiece (Pulp fiction) and also Scorsese's (Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver).

Pulp Fiction was 1994 so I think OP meant for you to count it. He also mentions Goodfellas so he probably has only watched it within the past 20 years.

Also Reservoir Dogs is Tarantino's masterpiece.

[ZeN]

Yep, Tarantino is on the same level as Tim Burton. Pretty talented but not a whole lot of range in his style.
Tarantinos worst movie is better than Burtons best.

[Raymone]

PT Anderson.

[Raymone]

Past 50: Kubrick

[Im Still Ballin]

George Lucas.

[STATUTORY]

Tarantino is a one trick pony. His one trick may be very good, but nonetheless- there's not much variety there. It's all over the top spaghetti western style no matter what the story/setting. Scorsese has slowed down some in recent years but I'll take his filmography any day of the week over Q's.

he also does kungfu and blaxploitation brah but yea Tarantino has somehow found a way to elevate homages to an art form. His movies work because of people's shared popular culture references and appeals precisely to the cinephiles in us.

With the exception of Pulp Fiction I think his movies lack non intentionally derivative authorial vision. I gotta go with Scorsese, altho his best movies i think are beyond the 2 decade time frame

[DonDadda59]

he also does kungfu and blaxploitation

I know, I've seen his flicks. With Django, he killed 2 Tarantino birds with one stone- a spaghetti western that was also a Blaxploitation film. Last I heard he's doing another Western (the Hateful 8) so expect more of the same from him.


PT Anderson.

:applause:

Looking forward to Inherent Vice.

[ArbitraryWater]

ZeN presents a great argument for Tarantino...

I was leaning Scorcese for the fact he's made 2 of my 3 favorites movies in Goodfellas and Departed, then again Tarantino made the other with Pulp Fiction.

[DeuceWallaces]

Tarantino is a better overall creator. He directs, writes and produces his films. Hes versatile in his direction and natural in his storytelling. Also his filmography is strong in quality and he has no bad feature film. He hasnt directed a musical. Instead of making straight comedies, he infuses comedic aspects in his stories, regardless of the genre of his films. Scorcese often gets praised despite his faults while Tarantino succeeds despite getting overly scrutinized and criticized. Also Tarantino gets crazy brilliant work out of a plethora of actors. While Scorcese sticks to actors he works well with, so as to lower the risk of directorial failure. Tarantino on the other hand is known for reviving careers and taking talent to a whole nother level.

Although I enjoy his films, I don't agree with any of that.

1) His producer credits are irrelevant to the discussion.
2) As someone pointed out, he is not versatile in his direction. It's the same, only the setting changes.
3) His writing and dialog is not natural; it's verbose and pretentious.
4) Death Proof sucks; KB V. 2 isn't much better.
5) Goodfellas, Wolf, Departed, Casino are just as funny as any Tarantino film.
6) Tarantino was the darling of the 90s - early 2000s and propped up consistently. It took a dumpster fire like Death Proof for people to finally criticize him.
7) Tarantino does not have a plethora of actors relative to any other director; he's relying on the same ones over and over. In some instances, for decades now.
8) You can only say he "revived" two actors, in one film. Both of whom were in a smash film together just 4-5 years before.
9) His past two hits were courtesy of Waltz and I don't see any reason to believe Tarantino brought him or anyone else to a whole "nother" level

[nightprowler10]

he also does kungfu and blaxploitation brah but yea Tarantino has somehow found a way to elevate homages to an art form. His movies work because of people's shared popular culture references and appeals precisely to the cinephiles in us.

With the exception of Pulp Fiction I think his movies lack non intentionally derivative authorial vision. I gotta go with Scorsese, altho his best movies i think are beyond the 2 decade time frame
And Reservoir Dogs.

[Raymone]

Jackie Brown always getting underrated.

[BoogieWoogieMan]

Tarantino is a better overall creator. He directs, writes and produces his films. Hes versatile in his direction and natural in his storytelling. Also his filmography is strong in quality and he has no bad feature film. He hasnt directed a musical. Instead of making straight comedies, he infuses comedic aspects in his stories, regardless of the genre of his films. Scorcese often gets praised despite his faults while Tarantino succeeds despite getting overly scrutinized and criticized. Also Tarantino gets crazy brilliant work out of a plethora of actors. While Scorcese sticks to actors he works well with, so as to lower the risk of directorial failure. Tarantino on the other hand is known for reviving careers and taking talent to a whole nother level.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/3840e4ad775110be9d1e8a8de6780519/tumblr_inline_n2wyhzJXN81qe4ieh.gif

[StephHamann]

7) Tarantino does not have a plethora of actors relative to any other director; he's relying on the same ones over and over. In some instances, for decades now.
8) You can only say he "revived" two actors, in one film. Both of whom were in a smash film together just 4-5 years before.
9) His past two hits were courtesy of Waltz and I don't see any reason to believe Tarantino brought him or anyone else to a whole "nother" level

Scorcese has Di Caprio in every movie doe

[Nastradamus]

Two great directors. Scorcese maybe a bit better of a pure storteller, and he has a grander scope to his movies. Tarantino has more talent. His editing, dialogue, cinematography etc. are always so ridiculously perfect(though the editing in Django was the sloppiest). His films may be more entertaining, depending what you're in the mood for and probably are more easily rewatchable as a whole. Scorcese's gangster flicks have great rewatch value though.

[ZeN]

Although I enjoy his films, I don't agree with any of that.

1) His producer credits are irrelevant to the discussion.


I personally dont believe that a director that does his job along with other additional duties is irrelevant. It shows that he can take on more responsibility than others. It also means that he has a larger hand in what the entire production ends up being.



2) As someone pointed out, he is not versatile in his direction. It's the same, only the setting changes.


I would argue that all his films are not the same and that its his style that you are referring to. How is gangster, crime heist, ww2, slave times, car action spoof, urban/ninja revenge and urban crime heist novel adaptation all the same thing? Those arent even all spaghetti westerns.

However when I said direction I meant directing action in the filming location. The shooting of different angles, perspectives, blocking, scope and the many things done with a camera. Also, the personnel handling that goes on behind the scenes. If you see behind the scene footage you see the vitality and dynamic way that he directs. Actors frequently speak about his energy on the set and the way that he pushes them to deliver better performances. Its common accolades given to him every time a new film comes out. Call it pandering but its been said since Reservoir Dogs. Samuel L. Jackson says thats why he will be in anything Tarantino directs, regardless of the material.




3) His writing and dialog is not natural; it's verbose and pretentious.



Im sorry that you dont appreciate dialog that is intellectual, creative and original. The only reasons others have lacking verbosity is because they lack the ability to write so much and be so consistently engaging. Also hes not pretending to be anything. He is being himself in his writing and has been so since he broke into the biz.

I for one dont want to always see natural dialog in films. I appreciate when im challenged and given something that took time and effort to construct. Not some regurgitated shit that they jumbled together because their making a movie. Not giving extra care to how original or memorable it is.




4) Death Proof sucks; KB V. 2 isn't much better.


Death Proof is as much a feature film as his portion in Four Rooms is. Its marginal material in my eyes but I can see your side of it. ( Ref. Edit)

KB V2 is not part two of the series. Its a 4 hour movie. Its quality as the second portion of that movie. The only reason it didnt come out as one film was because of Miramax but Tarantino has forever been insistent that it be treated as one. Ill take that direction from him.




5) Goodfellas, Wolf, Departed, Casino are just as funny as any Tarantino film.


I agree with that. However as a whole its not a consistent facet of Scorcece films. Not that its a bad thing just an observation I have. Wheres the humor in The Aviator, Raging Bull, Mean Streets, Gangs of New York, etc.. Just saying thats not something that he usually makes sure to include. Not hating on him for it.




6) Tarantino was the darling of the 90s - early 2000s and propped up consistently. It took a dumpster fire like Death Proof for people to finally criticize him.


That is incorrect in the 90's he was criticized for being too violent in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Activist would go on talk shows to claim that his films were influencing people in a wrong way and so fort...




7) Tarantino does not have a plethora of actors relative to any other director; he's relying on the same ones over and over. In some instances, for decades now.


You mean Samuel L. Jackson, Harvey Keitel, Uma Thurman and Christoph Waltz? For every old actor he uses theres 3 new high profile actors that he includes.



8) You can only say he "revived" two actors, in one film. Both of whom were in a smash film together just 4-5 years before.


Are you talking about John Travolta and Bruce Willis? I was taking about Steve Buscemi who was several years from having done Millers Crossing and nothing else. Also David Carradine, Daryl Hannah, Robert Forster, and Pam Grier all who got extra work after working with him, even if it wasnt high profile material.


9) His past two hits were courtesy of Waltz and I don't see any reason to believe Tarantino brought him or anyone else to a whole "nother" level



Waltz has explicitly stated that he owes his entire career to Tarantino due to being plucked out from doing Austrian t.v. to a high profile american film. He also has stated that due to the freedom that T.Q. has given him that he was able to reach another level. He has literally stated that in multiple interviews.

I would argue that Tarantino not only gave him a shot at having a hollywood career but that he gave it a second wind. After working with him he went on to do Carnage, The Three Musketeers, Water for Elephants and The F#cking Green Hornet.. all movies that did poorly critically.

Tarantino specifically wrote the role in Django for Waltz. Oh and what a suprise that another oscar nomination rolls around when they decided to work together again. Yes its the actor but also the director pushing the actor to greatness.

[DeuceWallaces]

I also disagree with nearly all of that.

[ZeN]

I also disagree with nearly all of that.
I'm sure you do. I'm simply sharing my personal opinion not attempting to convert you into any way of thinking.

[andgar923]

The one that stole less.

[DeuceWallaces]

I'm sure you do. I'm simply sharing my personal opinion not attempting to convert you into any way of thinking.

That's fantastic.

[LJJ]

I would argue that all his films are not the same and that its his style that you are referring to. How is gangster, crime heist, ww2, slave times, car action spoof, urban/ninja revenge and urban crime heist novel adaptation all the same thing? Those arent even all spaghetti westerns.

They are all campy Action Comedy exploitation flicks featuring the same rehashed tricks in a different setting.

Is Back to the Future 3 so different from the others because it has cowboys in it? Because that's the argument you are making. "Dude, it's entirely different! How is Wild West vs. 50s the same movie?".

I like Tarantino plenty, but there is no denying he's the most monotone big time film maker out there.

[plowking]

Tarantino is a one trick pony. His one trick may be very good, but nonetheless- there's not much variety there. It's all over the top spaghetti western style no matter what the story/setting. Scorsese has slowed down some in recent years but I'll take his filmography any day of the week over Q's.

Bingo.

Tarantino is so overrated. His best work is great though.

[T_L_P]

Paul Thomas Anderson and Jia Zhangke.

Tarantino has made five revenge fantasies in a row.

[DonD13]

Although I enjoy his films, I don't agree with any of that.

1) His producer credits are irrelevant to the discussion.
2) As someone pointed out, he is not versatile in his direction. It's the same, only the setting changes.
3) His writing and dialog is not natural; it's verbose and pretentious.
4) Death Proof sucks; KB V. 2 isn't much better.
5) Goodfellas, Wolf, Departed, Casino are just as funny as any Tarantino film.
6) Tarantino was the darling of the 90s - early 2000s and propped up consistently. It took a dumpster fire like Death Proof for people to finally criticize him.
7) Tarantino does not have a plethora of actors relative to any other director; he's relying on the same ones over and over. In some instances, for decades now.
8) You can only say he "revived" two actors, in one film. Both of whom were in a smash film together just 4-5 years before.
9) His past two hits were courtesy of Waltz and I don't see any reason to believe Tarantino brought him or anyone else to a whole "nother" level

:applause:

[Joshumitsu]

Tarantino hasn't made a good film since the 90s.

Everything now is a Spaghetti Western rip-off without the essential components of a Spaghetti Western.

It's just m@sturbatory revenge fantasies.

His recent use of music within film (and even some of his older films) is incredibly awkward as well....as opposed to Scorsese's nostalgic/ironic/iconic use of music (Raging Bull to Goodfellas to Departed). This is something Ennio Morricone pointed out and critics have pointed out as well.

[iamgine]

I love Tarantino.

Scorcese is just okay.

Therefore, Tarantino is better for me.

[T_L_P]

It's just m@sturbatory revenge fantasies.

:applause:

Basterds is a film where Jews turn into Nazis. Masterpiece.

[oarabbus]

I love Tarantino.

Scorcese is just okay.

Therefore, Tarantino is better for me.


This is just... wow. I mean if you feel that way, then you feel that way but... Scorcese is so much better than Tarantino it's absurd.

[SugarHill]

Tarantino hasn't made a good film since the 90s.

Everything now is a Spaghetti Western rip-off without the essential components of a Spaghetti Western.

It's just m@sturbatory revenge fantasies.

His recent use of music within film (and even some of his older films) is incredibly awkward as well....as opposed to Scorsese's nostalgic/ironic/iconic use of music (Raging Bull to Goodfellas to Departed). This is something Ennio Morricone pointed out and critics have pointed out as well.
:rolleyes:

[oarabbus]

The Departed. Goodfellas. Casino. Taxi Driver.

Scorcese is the LeBron to Tarantino's Carmelo.

[SugarHill]

They are all campy Action Comedy exploitation flicks featuring the same rehashed tricks in a different setting.

Is Back to the Future 3 so different from the others because it has cowboys in it? Because that's the argument you are making. "Dude, it's entirely different! How is Wild West vs. 50s the same movie?".

I like Tarantino plenty, but there is no denying he's the most monotone big time film maker out there.

Wes Anderson and Burton are way more formulaic. Not even close.

[iamgine]

This is just... wow. I mean if you feel that way, then you feel that way but... Scorcese is so much better than Tarantino it's absurd.
And vice versa for me.

Difference in opinion is usual.

[SugarHill]

Lets be honest here......Lebron is more like Michael Bay. You either love him or hate him, and the media overhypes them both way too much.

Terrible analogy.

[Im Still Ballin]

Mike Bay is the action genre.

Boom!
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IWi0Owg4ZbM/hqdefault.jpg

[ArbitraryWater]

Di Caprio is Scorsese's new De Niro

[T_L_P]

Di Caprio is Scorsese's new De Niro

What a downgrade.

[STATUTORY]

And Reservoir Dogs.
movie was a remake of this hongkong film plus a bunch of pop culture chit chat

[Budadiiii]

O Brothers, Where Art Though?

[ArbitraryWater]

What a downgrade.

Not really.

[Top Gun]

Scorcese for me. Don't sleep on Shutter Island.

[ZeN]

Scorcese for me. Don't sleep on Shutter Island.
The novel is better.

[GimmeThat]

Zak Snyder

[ZeN]

Zak Snyder
You got jokes lol

[DonDadda59]

What a downgrade.

Deniro is the reason Marty started working with Leo. He was so impressed by a young and then relatively unknown Leo after working with him on 'This Boy's Life' that he told Scorsese that he should keep an eye on the kid.