Has Tarantino said why he wants to stop at 10 movies?? Like what is he going to do with the rest of his life? Is he gonna go back to acting in plays/TV series?
He's seen filmmakers he loves decrease in quality/ability over time and does not want to be a filmmaker that also does that.
I don't why he thinks that, but if that's how he feels.
Eastwood hasn't been to great lately, but he was still making good stuff in his late seventies. Spielberg and Scorsese haven't hit the "highs" of their earlier careers, but their recent films are still real good.
There's usually a drop off, or better yet, an inconsistency from film to film, but plenty of older directors have made great films.
All these guys were 60+ when making these movies:
Spielberg: Lincoln, Bridge of Spies
Scorsese: Wolf of Wall Street,
Eastwood: Letters from Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River
Ridley Scott: The Martian
Hitchcock: Psycho, The Birds, Family Plot
John Huston: The Dead, Prizzi's Honor
Sidney Lumet: Before the Devil Knows Your Dead
Akira Kurosawa: Ran
Woody Allen: Midnight in Paris, Matchpoint
Bergman: Fanny and Alexander
Spike Lee: BlacKkKlansman
That's what I could come up with just a little research.
Tarantino is certainly on these guys' level and could still make great movies in his older years
Yeah, it's completely absurd to suggest that old filmmakers are incompetent and unable to make good movies when they're "elderly". People will often compare classics which have had time to marinate in the public consciousness to recent movies from older directors, lending a large bias to the former. Even if there is a correlation, it doesn't mean older directors can't potentially output great films nonetheless or that their efforts are in vain.
You proved Tarantino's point better than I ever could.
The average output of almost every filmmaker on that list is--on average--of significantly inferior quality to their earlier work. Having one or two good to great movies here or there is exactly what Tarantino wants to avoid. For every one filmmaker who's succeeded in their twilight years (Spielberg), there are ten who haven't. Tarantino knows the history of cinema better than any single person on this forum, I'm sure he knows that better than any of us too.
If Tarantino walked away tomorrow, he'll have made one of the cleanest and most acclaimed filmographies in the history of cinema. Why fuck that up? Why give him shit for it?
You proved Tarantino's point better than I ever could.
The average output of almost every filmmaker on that list is--on average--of significantly inferior quality to their earlier work. Having one or two good to great movies here or there is exactly what Tarantino wants to avoid. For every one filmmaker who's succeeded in their twilight years (Spielberg), there are ten who haven't. Tarantino knows the history of cinema better than any single person on this forum, I'm sure he knows that better than any of us too.
If Tarantino walked away tomorrow, he'll have made one of the cleanest and most acclaimed filmographies in the history of cinema. Why fuck that up? Why give him shit for it?
-Vader
"The average output of almost every filmmaker on that list is--on average--of significantly inferior quality to their earlier work."
That's debatable
Anyways, the man can do what he wants, but I rather have him keep making movies with the occasional misfire, if it means the occasional great movie also. Besides,some will already say he's made some lesser work than compared to what came "earlier" with Death Proof and Hateful Eight
