I prefer PTA. I just think his films go deeper with the characters and end up touching me more as a result. Tarantino is a master at what he does, my taste is just more aligned with PTA. :)
i guess i go the different route, where i prefer Quentin's characters just based off the fact that they are outlandish stereotypes that seem to either completely sway me or absolutely hate them. different digs i guess.
Everybody here defending QT haven't seen Hateful 8 XD. Secondly, QT can't make a film without the plot device of revenge Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Django etc.
Justin Quinn And? They all have different portrayals and kinds of revenge. Also "his movies are all about revenge" is one of the worst arguments that I've ever heard.
@Travis Besst I'm late to the party, but it's interesting to rewatch Pulp Fiction and notice how much QT plays around with race and power dynamics in that movie. I think there's a lot more depth in that film in particular than people give it credit for. I haven't rewatched his other films recently. But, generally, I tend to agree that PTA resonates deeper after just a single viewing.
Honestly I don't think PTA cares,for him making the films is rewarding enough. He's not all about making himself a star and a brand like Tarantino is...
They're very different types of filmmakers. Tarantino is more well known because he makes flashier action oriented films that people can really latch onto. Django, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Kill Bill, etc. PTA makes more human and personal slow burn films that not everyone is going to get into. Magnolia is 3 hours of human drama. It's a masterpiece, but it's not exactly something everyone is going to be down to sit and watch.
Well Tarantino’s films are like extroverts while Anderson’s are like the introverts. They sneak under the radar and the mainstream audiences sometimes misses them or don’t find them appealing cus they’re not as exhilarating as Tarantino’s
He talks about them in a long address to film students. He said they were an inspiration to him because of how professional their low budget films looked. ruclips.net/video/nQkZO3YkXXU/видео.html
@@coffeeheadduck3773 david lynch is hit or miss, but he is consistently weird. Overall, hes great though, because say what u want about him, but theres only one david lynch, only his brain could come up with that stuff. Blue velvet and eraserhead being my favorite.
Both will go down in history of the 2 of the most influential directors of their era but I think PTA is the better director based on the fact that he's show more versatility. Tarantino is great at what he does but he hasn't surprised me in at least a decade.
Please tell me he surprised you with once upon a time in hollywood... because that is probably the film that is the most different than all of his other works and it’s fucking beautiful.
CarlHH777 i agree. its amazing to see how much PTA has changed since Boogie Nights (and hard 8), while Tarantino has been doing the same since Reservoir Dogs. Sure, Once Upon a Time is a different film, but still severely lacks the artistic value PTA has in his films
Hillary Clinton well obviously because it has the batshit ending, but other than that, it’s a movie with very little dialogue and a lot of scenes with an innocent and tender feel to them which is not like his other movies at all. It’s by far his most different.
Paul Thomas Anderson is unequivocally the superior director. His films are superior in tone, direction, screenwriting, acting and overall depth. When I watch a tarantino film, I know exactly what to expect and know that there’s gonna be quippy dialogue, a crazy ending and lots of gore and fun action. But with Pta, each of films are unique and completely different in terms of the style and the story and the direction that each film veers towards.
as much as I love qt I think you are technically right like with qt you’re gonna have your mind blown in a fun way but with pta your gonna have your mind blown and question your whole existence, but still sometimes in a fun way. And pta forsure has way more variety
@@92HazelMocha I jus don’t think they can’t really predict a Tarantino film. I mean yea you can predict it’ll be clever and funny and gory with great cinematography, but did anyone really see the end of “once upon a time in Hollywood”coming. That movie wasn’t even close to what I expected. 10/10 film
I think that Tarantino is usually more fun, while pta is generally more thought provoking. So it really comes down to what you think makes a film great
Both are great directors, but the edge goes to Anderson. Both creative geniuses, Taranatino has the advantage in quotable lines, through "I drink your milkshake" is hard to beat, while the breath of PTAs film catalog is wider than OTs. The thing is that Tarantino films don't have much depth, they're entertaining and on repeat viewing stay entertaining while PTA films are not only entertaining but reveal multiple layers of meaning. In short, OT is an apple, PTA a sweet onion.
This is so awesome :) Probably my two favorite modern filmmakers, along with Scorsese. I've been watching them both over the past six months or so, some of the best cinematic experiences of my life. They're two masters at their craft, who are so wildly different from one another that it's impossible to compare. God, I love cinema
the debate of who is better is honestly just personal taste. objectively they are both so different and I am personally a PTA girl. I wish he had the same popularity as tarantino but I never believed tarantino's popularity was overrated. truly the best of the filmmaking industry
QT's formula is always the same though. Tension through dialogue --> releases in over-the-top violence; tension tension tension through dialogue --> releases through over-the top-violence; laughter through mundane banter...releases through over-the-top violence, etc. Takes a bow. PTA films: Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood...no discernible formula between any of those, save for the fact that each film has a weight and tone that will stay with you in its own right. Having said all that, there's room for both in my heart. Love all their films.
No discernable formula?! They are all about family and capatalism. Punch Drunk Love is only film that breaks his structure by not having a parent and child dynamic.
Except for Pulp Fiction no other Quentin Tarantino work can stand against any of the PTA films. The appeal QT has among the masses is understandable, His films are very stylish and very Hollywood.
'the masses' don't care about style at all, have you seen the shit that's popular? PTA's films are acc far more conventional dramas and far more 'Hollywood' in that sense - whereas Tarantino's films are always some kind of exercise in pop culture self-reflexion, fr less straightforward and far more geared towards film nerds
difficult comparison. I'd say PTA is more ambitious and succesful at that; while Quention definitely makes his works seem more effortless, which may be one of the most important qualities of any artist, though especially in such a heavily constructed medium as film.
I love that he's close friends with him and loves There WIll Be Blood so much bc it's one of my favorite movies. I just bought Magnolia i haven't seen it in years but it's a classic imo.
Not at all. The Brando/Clift comparison is actually fairly decent. Brando was about raw passion - Clift more subtle and tortured. Clift was actually the better actor imo, but regardless just broadly Tarantino is a better comparison to Brando for sure.
I wonder if Tarantino is them as a mass recognition analogy. Something like 7 out of 10 random people off the street will have heard of Marlon Brando. Four out of 10 will recognize the name Montgomery Clift (provided it's a diverse 10 people). So, it likely is with Q and PTA.
People who compare those two are stupid. Quentin is a master of dialogue and storytelling while PTA creates stories and characters with depth. Both are very good at what they do and comparing them is at least idiotic.
Anderson is superior. In terms of indulging his influences whilst telling an original story that involves relatable characters, Paul will always come out on top. His characters and his writing always focus on the emotional complexity of the character above anything else. Any of his films are on par (visually) with Tarantino, but his characters will always be the more believable.
@@Morgan-ws1ng ....most of the world doesn't even know what that website is. It's funny to me how some anglophones think there's something wrong with watching cinema not from the US-UK. Stay in that bubble.
@@RenegadeShepard69 nothing wrong with it. I do it. What is dumb is calling PTA and Tarantino bad so people think you have a personality for liking foreign film. And if you do that then you’re cringe too
@@Morgan-ws1ng Sure that's what you call a "letterboxd nerd", a person who dislikes Tarantino and PTA and prefers Haneke, when funnily enough, plenty of people in the industry do that too, recent US film is not treated like gold outside the anglosphere, just to inform you. But I, myself, am not interested in rating any director, I find it bizarre, immature and sporslike when I see comment sections like this, dedicated to competition over such things as filmmaking, as far as art is concerned all of them have their own value and I can learn with every one of them, even americans, and that's what matters. Even if PTA were bad, which he is not, he'd still be worth watching no less than Haneke, so that guy is wrong to write him off. So You both sound stupid to me sorry but the film snobs on letterboxd are awful people for way worse reasons than watching movies not in english. And you still didn't get it that for most of us, who are not from an english speaking country, those "foregin films" you talk about, are just films, and I'm not a "cringe" hipster for looking up films from my own country lol.
I see PTA as a very competent and classic filmmaker with a very sleek style of visual storytelling with deep and thought provoking characters, his films will goes down in the history as something new filmmaker need to study from while QT is about exploitation film and experimental cinema, his movies is bold yet very accessible and no one can write dialogue like QT, for me QT is a Progressive rock of cinema and PTA is an Orchestra conductor.
this comparison between filmmakers was starting to age poorly from Quentin's side of things imo, but he absolutely pulled something special out of himself with Once upon a time in hollywood. It had the relaxed hangout magic of Jackie Brown, but also just felt so personal in a way a QT film hasnt been before. a film about hollywood and old movies and actors made by a guy obsessed with hollywood and old movies and actors. also about generational shift, what it feels like when you're no longer the new kid on the block, you're in fact older than you thought you'd ever be and likely past your prime. it's also a movie starring the two biggest movie stars of the last 30 years in a time when the idea of the 'movie star' has started to become less important, maybe even obselete. he only could've made this at the age he's at now. a last hurrah for old hollywood, movie stars and auteurist event cinema (you could say chris nolan is still flying the flag, but it's just not the same thing imo. paul and quentin are the only real ones left).
@@wildheart3899 honestly Jackie Brown was the movie I couldn't sit through. I am really focused and can easily watch even 4 hour movies but this one was awful. Watched first one hour and still didn't care about the characters at all
Does anybody else feel like Tarantino feels kind of threatened by PTA? Like. Anderson did The Master in 65mm, then Tarantino does Hateful Eight in 70mm. Always thought that seemed a bit like he was trying to one-up him.
I wasn’t even referring to anything he specifically said here. I thought my comment should have illustrated that quite clearly, given what I wrote about.
This is great to hear, because I also feel like “Licorce Pizza” was a response to “Once Upon a Time,” in terms of really luxuriating in vintage California
Personally, Pt Anderson will always be the best, but I feel this is a 'Beatles or the Stones?', or 'Blur or Oasis?' type question. it comes down to your tastes and the movies you loved as a kid. I was never into Bruce lee or Kung Fu movies, but I loved The Long Goodbye (Altman's version) as soon as I saw it, so that is why I love PTA. His film echo the movies I loved. I think much of it has to do with the men themselvs too. I would find it hard hanging out with high maintenance Quentin for an hour, where as PTA comes across as great company. Heck, that may even explain why PTA can write such complex characters, because he is more of a people person. Quentin's characters are all clearly him in some way. Anyway, whatever drives the two of them to crate great movies, let them carry on!
I love them both, but PTA has some of those long lasting Kubrick type shots that fill a void for me. I love Tarantino as well, but for completely different reasons.
Hard to pick one. I honestly think Tarantino has the edge on his dialogue. But PTA is a master story teller. But them feeding off each other with friendly competition over the decades has really benefited us the viewers immensely.
No point in arguing who’s better, QT and PTA should just do a collaboration. It will be Travolta and Day-Lewis glaring at each other across a table, with Sam Jackson in the background slurping the bottom end of a beverage glancing back and forth. No dialogue. The film will be 2hrs and 43 minutes. The title “I Will Drink Your $5 Milkshake”.
Tarantino just does very high-end popcorn movies, but very visual and entertaining. Where PTA films, have visual mastery to them, but are way way more deeper. PTA all day.
Both are awesome, but I give pt Anderson the nod. his movies seem to be so much deeper and they truly suck you in, not just the story but the cinematography, and the shots are hypnotic.
I don't see the problem in comparing them. In fact, I wonder why we still insist on avoiding comparison between creators at all cost, as if it was demeaning or as if people feared criticism for one of the sides.
It‘s probably because they had similiar careers in the sense that they both Never went to Film school, both stated That you could learn everything from watching movies, and i think they are of a siniliar age and Family background which makes the obvious differences in their filmmaking so much More interesting.
Basterds was a blisteringly fun revenge fantasy interspersed with some truly fantastic acting moments and meticulously crafted scenes (the farmhouse interrogation/the basement bar/the strudel) but it was a trifle compared with TWBB. Tarantino is a one-of-a-kind auteur who revolutionized movie-making and storytelling, but for depth of theme and character and story, for sheer dramatic sweep, I think history will judge PTA to be the superior filmmaker.
as a personality we all love tarantino, and IMO he made 1 great film (pulp fiction), but as a filmmaker's body of work, innovation and just generally as a creator PTA is several steps above Quentin so I dont really get how he's supposed to be Brando in this relationship. Brando was the genius, Monty Clift was a very talented actor, which is the real equivalence between the two
I think Tarantino's got more god-given talent as a writer but PTA's just done the better work by far, Pulp Fiction I think you could argue is better than any PTA film but other than that I'd take PTA's filmography in a heartbeat
Emsee dude come on, Pulp Fiction changed cinema, and is undisputed one of the best films of all time. Magnolia was great, very moving, but was over 3 hours, had unnecessary stories, and rained fucking frogs at the end!
GiantSandles Id actually love to see anyone argue Pulp Fiction is even in the same league as There Will be Blood or The Master. Pulp Fiction’s greatness is based on a gimmick, while both There Will Be Blood and The Master actually have something to say. Leaving aside, of course, how much better those two films are from a filmmaking perspective (Directing, cinematography, acting, editing, production design, etc.)
leonardo zumaeta rojas in terms of production design, editing, cinematography, do you realize you’re comparing a 1994 film which was only the director’s 2nd film, 1st with a major studio and actually some money to make it, to films made in 2007 and 2012 from a filmmaker who’s been at it for 10+ years already? Like obviously those films are gonna have better production design, editing, cinematography. But if you’re talking about Inglorious Basterds, The Hateful Eight, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, they are easily in the same league as There Will Be Blood and The Master, maybe even better. And Pulp Fiction doesn’t have anything to say? It’s one of the most influential films of all time... There’s no reason to tear one of these filmmakers down while building one up, they are both extraordinary directors/writers who have made massive contributions to the film industry and will be remembered forever.
Tarantino is, for me, very talented director, and writer, of course. i respect huge his work and his thought, obvious, but i'm not agree when he give hard opinions about, for example, Kubrick or other, simply because them are no near with his idea of cinema..
There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights are in my top ten. Once Upon A Time and Pulp Fiction are in my top ten. Then theres Kubrick movies. Dazed and Confused...Oh fuck, I'm creating a top ten. Fuck this.
Did you listen to the interview? Tarantino is talking about the release of "Inglourious Basterds," which was released in 2009. This interview is from before the 2010s.
Post There Will Be Blood, PTA's movies look as if they are made only for critics, I tried to watch Inherent Vice on 4 different occasions but couldn't get past the first hour. It was so confusing and boring. But going back to Magnolia and Boogie Nights, he was phenomenal.
What do you mean made for critics. Lots of people including myself have loved his recent films . Granted they are less mainstream but you so realise that doesnt me worse right?
Good that PTA inspired him to up his game. As much fun it was hanging out with Robert Rodriguez, making B movies, he wasn't going to make anything as amazing as Basterds that will be remembered decades after its release.
quentin isnt as intelligent as Paul tbh. A movie like "there will be blood' or "The Master " isnt even on his wave length . Could he have come up with Boogie Nights ? yeah, and Maybe Magnolia, and Inherent Vice.. Dont get me wrong. I love his movies and he is great, But PTA's mind is on another Orson Welles like level.
Why is every comment talking about which one is better like damn can’t there just be a friendly chat about ppl who respect each other without blasting preferences
After reservoir dog's, Tarantino has only made slightly if not full fledged satires. They're wonderful but I'd like to see if he has a higher function. And honestly, and no disrespect to QT, he shouldn't consider himself in the same league as PTA.
Theyre both awesome and will go down as top of their generation. But man reading all the comments here truly shows how insufferable QT and PTA fanboys really are.
Chris Cleff the problem is that it’s his best movie. He saw it didn’t sell well and he reverted back to every character sounding like Quentin Tarantino in every movie going forward. Jackie Browne had actual characters. Hence why it’s the best. Max Cherry is one of the best ever.
someone you'll disagree with , yeah lot of them are film school kids who worship QT and think Pulp Fiction is the best movie ever. I get your annoyance with them.
I prefer Tanrantino alot more, I'm a visual person, not in the "look at this beautifully shot mountain scene" but like "look at this guy getting shot in the head in the most unique way possible."
Robert rodriguez has left the chat.
Edgar Wright has joined the chat.
Ahahhahaha
Ikr. That hurts
Rodriguez isn't even in the same league as PTA or Tarantino so it's no surprise Quentin feels more inspired by PTA's work.
Cooper It’s like when people try to compare the Stones to the Beatles like they have equal amounts of talent
I prefer PTA. I just think his films go deeper with the characters and end up touching me more as a result. Tarantino is a master at what he does, my taste is just more aligned with PTA. :)
i guess i go the different route, where i prefer Quentin's characters just based off the fact that they are outlandish stereotypes that seem to either completely sway me or absolutely hate them. different digs i guess.
Everybody here defending QT haven't seen Hateful 8 XD. Secondly, QT can't make a film without the plot device of revenge Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Django etc.
Exactly!. Its always about revenge
Justin Quinn
And? They all have different portrayals and kinds of revenge. Also "his movies are all about revenge" is one of the worst arguments that I've ever heard.
@Travis Besst I'm late to the party, but it's interesting to rewatch Pulp Fiction and notice how much QT plays around with race and power dynamics in that movie. I think there's a lot more depth in that film in particular than people give it credit for. I haven't rewatched his other films recently. But, generally, I tend to agree that PTA resonates deeper after just a single viewing.
It makes me so sad that Tarantino is so much more known than PTA
Honestly I don't think PTA cares,for him making the films is rewarding enough. He's not all about making himself a star and a brand like Tarantino is...
They're very different types of filmmakers. Tarantino is more well known because he makes flashier action oriented films that people can really latch onto. Django, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, Kill Bill, etc. PTA makes more human and personal slow burn films that not everyone is going to get into. Magnolia is 3 hours of human drama. It's a masterpiece, but it's not exactly something everyone is going to be down to sit and watch.
i know what you mean
Well Tarantino’s films are like extroverts while Anderson’s are like the introverts. They sneak under the radar and the mainstream audiences sometimes misses them or don’t find them appealing cus they’re not as exhilarating as Tarantino’s
Declan O'Connor Tarantino is better. PTA is hit-and-miss.
Fiona apple said she quit coke after spending time with pta and qt in a private movie theatre after a coke fuelled night
We got a masterpiece from QT because of a masterpiece by PTA. All I can say to that is...Thank you, Mr PTA.
I think "There Will Be Blood" and "Inglorious Bastards" are two masterpieces of cinema!
Inglorious Basterds is shit outside of Christoph Waltz's performance and the pub scene with Diane.
@@Ray_D_Tutto so the whole movie? lmao
@@Ray_D_Tutto Shit? 🤦♂🤦♂
@@Ray_D_Tutto what are you talking about, almost every scene, set piece and moment is captivating.
wonder what he thinks about the coen brothers.
I don't think he's ever talked about them, but I'm really curious as well.
He talks about them in a long address to film students. He said they were an inspiration to him because of how professional their low budget films looked. ruclips.net/video/nQkZO3YkXXU/видео.html
...or what he thinks about David Lynch.
@@coffeeheadduck3773 david lynch is hit or miss, but he is consistently weird. Overall, hes great though, because say what u want about him, but theres only one david lynch, only his brain could come up with that stuff. Blue velvet and eraserhead being my favorite.
@@citizenbeeswax7985 I enjoy David's work, and I mention him here because of his L.A.-ness.
Both will go down in history of the 2 of the most influential directors of their era but I think PTA is the better director based on the fact that he's show more versatility. Tarantino is great at what he does but he hasn't surprised me in at least a decade.
CarlHH777 Absolutely agreed. Tarantino had become a ridiculous cliche of himself, though I’ll say he recovered beautifully with OUAT.
Please tell me he surprised you with once upon a time in hollywood... because that is probably the film that is the most different than all of his other works and it’s fucking beautiful.
CarlHH777 i agree. its amazing to see how much PTA has changed since Boogie Nights (and hard 8), while Tarantino has been doing the same since Reservoir Dogs. Sure, Once Upon a Time is a different film, but still severely lacks the artistic value PTA has in his films
Hillary Clinton well obviously because it has the batshit ending, but other than that, it’s a movie with very little dialogue and a lot of scenes with an innocent and tender feel to them which is not like his other movies at all. It’s by far his most different.
@Hillary Clinton I mean, I think it's kind of a good aspect of his films? Like, they're different and same(ish) at the same time and I love that.
Paul Thomas Anderson is unequivocally the superior director. His films are superior in tone, direction, screenwriting, acting and overall depth. When I watch a tarantino film, I know exactly what to expect and know that there’s gonna be quippy dialogue, a crazy ending and lots of gore and fun action. But with Pta, each of films are unique and completely different in terms of the style and the story and the direction that each film veers towards.
as much as I love qt I think you are technically right
like with qt you’re gonna have your mind blown in a fun way but with pta your gonna have your mind blown and question your whole existence, but still sometimes in a fun way. And pta forsure has way more variety
Someone fundamentally doesn't understand Tarantino films.
@@92HazelMocha no man
@@92HazelMocha I jus don’t think they can’t really predict a Tarantino film. I mean yea you can predict it’ll be clever and funny and gory with great cinematography, but did anyone really see the end of “once upon a time in Hollywood”coming. That movie wasn’t even close to what I expected. 10/10 film
I think that Tarantino is usually more fun, while pta is generally more thought provoking. So it really comes down to what you think makes a film great
Both are great directors, but the edge goes to Anderson. Both creative geniuses, Taranatino has the advantage in quotable lines, through "I drink your milkshake" is hard to beat, while the breath of PTAs film catalog is wider than OTs. The thing is that Tarantino films don't have much depth, they're entertaining and on repeat viewing stay entertaining while PTA films are not only entertaining but reveal multiple layers of meaning.
In short, OT is an apple, PTA a sweet onion.
Why are you calling him OT and not QT?
I love when they talk about each other.
There will be blood is… one of the greatest film ever made. Everything in it is stellar.
Probably cause u havent watched The Master or Magnolia or Boogie Nights
This is so awesome :)
Probably my two favorite modern filmmakers, along with Scorsese. I've been watching them both over the past six months or so, some of the best cinematic experiences of my life. They're two masters at their craft, who are so wildly different from one another that it's impossible to compare. God, I love cinema
PTA is so damn good that it humbles Tarantino. On the serious though, Tarantino is a gem and must be protected.
I love them both. It doesn't matter what the film is about, I will go to the theater to watch their work. Every. Single. Time.
the debate of who is better is honestly just personal taste. objectively they are both so different and I am personally a PTA girl. I wish he had the same popularity as tarantino but I never believed tarantino's popularity was overrated. truly the best of the filmmaking industry
QT's formula is always the same though. Tension through dialogue --> releases in over-the-top violence; tension tension tension through dialogue --> releases through over-the top-violence; laughter through mundane banter...releases through over-the-top violence, etc. Takes a bow.
PTA films: Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood...no discernible formula between any of those, save for the fact that each film has a weight and tone that will stay with you in its own right.
Having said all that, there's room for both in my heart. Love all their films.
Like a pony, but with only one trick.
I think his movies being sameish and different at the same time is good, since he created a directing style that you can pinpoint.
Id agree Paul is better but that is an incredibly stupid and innaccurate deconstruction of Tarantino movies. You clearly know nothing about film
No discernable formula?! They are all about family and capatalism. Punch Drunk Love is only film that breaks his structure by not having a parent and child dynamic.
@@schmebulockjizz Aye, it's a pretty shit overview.
They have explored each other’s bodies
0:38 _I feel I’m Marlon Brando. ._ _and Brando was BETTER_
I’m like dude, wtf that’s so narci. . _(sike, gotcha) because Montgomery Clift existed_
Of course quentins a narcisist i think he always been a bit self obsessed
@@65g4 i agree
@@65g4 I wouldn't really say that. I don't think I saw him bragging about how great he is anywhere else. If he has, please do tell.
@@DanBruhMoment You feel it come across in his movies, similar to Woody Allen
@@antonioHR23 Really? I never got that feeling in all honesty.
"Most cherished relationship" with another filmmaker! *Gasp* what about Bob Rodriguez! The two of them seemed inseparable..
tarantino and rodriguez really disagree on film v digital tho
well...he has connection with a lot of directors. Ely Roth and Takashi Miike are to other examples.
@@sij809 Well i don't know about "worlds better". RR is a master at what he knows. El Mariachi and Sin City are amazing films for many reasons
he's more like a good friend not a filmaker on his level. and pta is honestly better
PTA is an old coke friend, it's different
Except for Pulp Fiction no other Quentin Tarantino work can stand against any of the PTA films.
The appeal QT has among the masses is understandable, His films are very stylish and very Hollywood.
I would say Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill (esp Vol. 1) and Inglorious Basterds can stand against PTA films.
Django Unchained is awesome as hell too
PTA is amazing ❤️
'the masses' don't care about style at all, have you seen the shit that's popular? PTA's films are acc far more conventional dramas and far more 'Hollywood' in that sense - whereas Tarantino's films are always some kind of exercise in pop culture self-reflexion, fr less straightforward and far more geared towards film nerds
Saying QT is "Very Hollywood" is the dumbest take I ever heard. You realize how many films QT influenced by Reservoir Dogs alone?
Love both. Can’t imagine the film landscape today without Tarantino though.
PTA is better than QT, though I’m glad to see the two giving each other love.
Disagree, Tarantino is more consistent.
@@rodycaz8984 it's easy to be consistent hes movies much more simple and straight forward
@@ilqar887 Let's agree to disagree about that.
difficult comparison. I'd say PTA is more ambitious and succesful at that; while Quention definitely makes his works seem more effortless, which may be one of the most important qualities of any artist, though especially in such a heavily constructed medium as film.
PTA Always transcends himself he never makes the same movie twice.
I love that he's close friends with him and loves There WIll Be Blood so much bc it's one of my favorite movies. I just bought Magnolia i haven't seen it in years but it's a classic imo.
I love you Quentin, but you are without a doubt Montgomery Clift.
Nah
Not at all. The Brando/Clift comparison is actually fairly decent. Brando was about raw passion - Clift more subtle and tortured. Clift was actually the better actor imo, but regardless just broadly Tarantino is a better comparison to Brando for sure.
I wonder if Tarantino is them as a mass recognition analogy. Something like 7 out of 10 random people off the street will have heard of Marlon Brando. Four out of 10 will recognize the name Montgomery Clift (provided it's a diverse 10 people). So, it likely is with Q and PTA.
@@WalterLiddy most would agree PTA is the better director and Brando the better actor. Nuff said
Yeah PTA is the man.
People who compare those two are stupid. Quentin is a master of dialogue and storytelling while PTA creates stories and characters with depth. Both are very good at what they do and comparing them is at least idiotic.
Exactly. Both aim to scratch different itches, and they do it with great skill.
Boiling them down to dialogue and storytelling, and stories and characters is idiotic
Tarantino's films are entertaining to watch. PTA's films are entertaining to understand. Just a different type of entertaining.
It's not idiotic. It's literally the same Art form. Yes they're obviously different but saying they aren't comparable is idiotic
One is a master of storytelling and the other creates stories... hmmm...
Anderson is superior. In terms of indulging his influences whilst telling an original story that involves relatable characters, Paul will always come out on top. His characters and his writing always focus on the emotional complexity of the character above anything else. Any of his films are on par (visually) with Tarantino, but his characters will always be the more believable.
No both of them suck, the actual great directors of this generation are Austrian auteur Michael haneke and Tsai ming liang
@@atulyabharadwaj2279 cringe Letterboxd nerd
@@Morgan-ws1ng ....most of the world doesn't even know what that website is. It's funny to me how some anglophones think there's something wrong with watching cinema not from the US-UK. Stay in that bubble.
@@RenegadeShepard69 nothing wrong with it. I do it. What is dumb is calling PTA and Tarantino bad so people think you have a personality for liking foreign film. And if you do that then you’re cringe too
@@Morgan-ws1ng Sure that's what you call a "letterboxd nerd", a person who dislikes Tarantino and PTA and prefers Haneke, when funnily enough, plenty of people in the industry do that too, recent US film is not treated like gold outside the anglosphere, just to inform you.
But I, myself, am not interested in rating any director, I find it bizarre, immature and sporslike when I see comment sections like this, dedicated to competition over such things as filmmaking, as far as art is concerned all of them have their own value and I can learn with every one of them, even americans, and that's what matters. Even if PTA were bad, which he is not, he'd still be worth watching no less than Haneke, so that guy is wrong to write him off.
So You both sound stupid to me sorry but the film snobs on letterboxd are awful people for way worse reasons than watching movies not in english.
And you still didn't get it that for most of us, who are not from an english speaking country, those "foregin films" you talk about, are just films, and I'm not a "cringe" hipster for looking up films from my own country lol.
I see PTA as a very competent and classic filmmaker with a very sleek style of visual storytelling with deep and thought provoking characters, his films will goes down in the history as something new filmmaker need to study from while QT is about exploitation film and experimental cinema, his movies is bold yet very accessible and no one can write dialogue like QT, for me QT is a Progressive rock of cinema and PTA is an Orchestra conductor.
this comparison between filmmakers was starting to age poorly from Quentin's side of things imo, but he absolutely pulled something special out of himself with Once upon a time in hollywood. It had the relaxed hangout magic of Jackie Brown, but also just felt so personal in a way a QT film hasnt been before. a film about hollywood and old movies and actors made by a guy obsessed with hollywood and old movies and actors. also about generational shift, what it feels like when you're no longer the new kid on the block, you're in fact older than you thought you'd ever be and likely past your prime. it's also a movie starring the two biggest movie stars of the last 30 years in a time when the idea of the 'movie star' has started to become less important, maybe even obselete. he only could've made this at the age he's at now. a last hurrah for old hollywood, movie stars and auteurist event cinema (you could say chris nolan is still flying the flag, but it's just not the same thing imo. paul and quentin are the only real ones left).
Tarantino and Scorsese are the greatest who are still alive and working.
That’s interesting, I’ve always enjoyed his newer stuff more.
PTA and coen brothers my all time favorite ditectors
Same dude. I love them, There works are amazing ❤️
You have great taste.
Tarantino talking about TWBB being PTA's masterpiece when Inglourious Basterds ended up being Tarantino's masterpiece. Amazing.
I think Jackie Brown is QTs best work
@@wildheart3899 EW
@@wildheart3899 honestly Jackie Brown was the movie I couldn't sit through. I am really focused and can easily watch even 4 hour movies but this one was awful. Watched first one hour and still didn't care about the characters at all
Inglorious basterds is amazing but dude, don't forget pulp fiction ^^
PTA blows Quentin out of the water, it's not even close.
two great guys
Does anybody else feel like Tarantino feels kind of threatened by PTA? Like. Anderson did The Master in 65mm, then Tarantino does Hateful Eight in 70mm. Always thought that seemed a bit like he was trying to one-up him.
No, I feel like he's saying exactly what he means to say and what he genuinely feels. I don't see what's hard to accept about it.
I wasn’t even referring to anything he specifically said here. I thought my comment should have illustrated that quite clearly, given what I wrote about.
same with Hollywood copying the setting and atmosphere of inherent vice
This is great to hear, because I also feel like “Licorce Pizza” was a response to “Once Upon a Time,” in terms of really luxuriating in vintage California
two legends in love
Personally, Pt Anderson will always be the best, but I feel this is a 'Beatles or the Stones?', or 'Blur or Oasis?' type question. it comes down to your tastes and the movies you loved as a kid. I was never into Bruce lee or Kung Fu movies, but I loved The Long Goodbye (Altman's version) as soon as I saw it, so that is why I love PTA. His film echo the movies I loved. I think much of it has to do with the men themselvs too. I would find it hard hanging out with high maintenance Quentin for an hour, where as PTA comes across as great company. Heck, that may even explain why PTA can write such complex characters, because he is more of a people person. Quentin's characters are all clearly him in some way. Anyway, whatever drives the two of them to crate great movies, let them carry on!
These two are like Yin and Yang in modern film-makers circle
I preferred his Resident Evil to There Will Be Blood. Similar themes though and both had good peformances
:D
This comment had me _really_ confused for a few minutes
@@daveedmilann it was a joke, there is three directors i always get mixed up, Wes Anderson, and the two Paul Andersons. Sarcasm
That's fking awesome
I love them both, but PTA has some of those long lasting Kubrick type shots that fill a void for me. I love Tarantino as well, but for completely different reasons.
You said it perfectly, those Kubrick type shots hit the soul
Awesome.
Who's the better director is a dumb question but PTA is definitely the better Human being!
"Most cherished relationship" with another filmmaker! what about Bob Rodriguez! The seem
Hard to pick one. I honestly think Tarantino has the edge on his dialogue. But PTA is a master story teller. But them feeding off each other with friendly competition over the decades has really benefited us the viewers immensely.
pta > qt
two great directors valuing their relationship but their fans fighting over them in the comments section.
Thankfully most of the "fighting" is calm. Most.
This section fucking sucks, it's not a competition yet people make it out to be one. It's impossible to just appreciate output. Ffs
No point in arguing who’s better, QT and PTA should just do a collaboration.
It will be Travolta and Day-Lewis glaring at each other across a table, with Sam Jackson in the background slurping the bottom end of a beverage glancing back and forth.
No dialogue.
The film will be 2hrs and 43 minutes.
The title “I Will Drink Your $5 Milkshake”.
From?
Tarantino just does very high-end popcorn movies, but very visual and entertaining. Where PTA films, have visual mastery to them, but are way way more deeper. PTA all day.
I love this. The best two directors going now!
Did Scorsese die?
Both are awesome, but I give pt Anderson the nod. his movies seem to be so much deeper and they truly suck you in, not just the story but the cinematography, and the shots are hypnotic.
He made hard eight when he was 24,25...the movie released later...when Quentin was in his early 20's he made My best friends birthday.
PTA also sort of grew up in the industry where as Tarantino was a self taught video store clerk.
2 guys that love themselves way too much
I don't understand how you can compare QT to PTA and vice versa, they have a style of filmmaking that's not even remotely comparable with eachother.
Wratheffect
It's about comparing two popular film makers, not the style of these film makers.
I don't see the problem in comparing them. In fact, I wonder why we still insist on avoiding comparison between creators at all cost, as if it was demeaning or as if people feared criticism for one of the sides.
It‘s probably because they had similiar careers in the sense that they both Never went to Film school, both stated That you could learn everything from watching movies, and i think they are of a siniliar age and Family background which makes the obvious differences in their filmmaking so much More interesting.
So okay, who is the James Dean, here?
Well, the question is will Tarantino be able to make a film like Punch-Drunk Love?
I think it’d be dope if Tarantino’s last film was something small. His fans would hate it but us film heads would likely love it
another question is will PTA be able to make a film like Kill Bill. Punch-Drunk Love is a more unique experience of course
@@mjxtacreaixe PTA won't, cuz over the top ain't his aisle I guess.
@@wildheart3899 Yh, PTA makes PTA and Tarantino makes Tarantino
@@mjxtacreaixe I know that. And I like em for their unique style. I love QTs use of over the top. It's fun! Isn't it!
That period from 2009 when he made Inglorious, until 2012 when Django came out is probably Tarantinos greatest.
you mean those are his two best movies?
@@travisb1o0m19 yeah, that was a really weird way of saying that lol
incredible. I think comparing the 2 is a waste of time, just enjoy their filmographys and be glad they're both still making movies
Bit of a Lennon/McCartney thing going on here
I zoned out the moment he said, "I feel I'm Marlon Brando"
Kubrick would approve after 250 takes
Deep
Basterds was a blisteringly fun revenge fantasy interspersed with some truly fantastic acting moments and meticulously crafted scenes (the farmhouse interrogation/the basement bar/the strudel) but it was a trifle compared with TWBB. Tarantino is a one-of-a-kind auteur who revolutionized movie-making and storytelling, but for depth of theme and character and story, for sheer dramatic sweep, I think history will judge PTA to be the superior filmmaker.
There will be blood is muuuuuch much better than Inglorious bastards
Poor Robert Rodriguez
What’s funny is Montgomery Clift is better than Marlon Brando :P
as a personality we all love tarantino, and IMO he made 1 great film (pulp fiction), but as a filmmaker's body of work, innovation and just generally as a creator PTA is several steps above Quentin so I dont really get how he's supposed to be Brando in this relationship. Brando was the genius, Monty Clift was a very talented actor, which is the real equivalence between the two
Quentin is so full of himself it's remarkable. He once said that he's better than Fincher because he writes his own movies.
Love them both but Tarantino will always be my favourite director of all time.
maybe you should watch more movies.
@@antonioHR23 maybe you should respect his opinion.
@@krasipaskalevv sorry I cant 🤷♂️
@@antonioHR23 yikes
The man made Inglorious after There will be blood. we all won
If I see one more comment saying ‘actually I prefer PTA (unlike the masses, what a shame)’ I’m gonna lose it.
Actually I prefer PTA
N C I have lost it.
PTA looks so much more approachable than QT, I still like QT more but there’s no doubt that PTA is an incredible director
I have hard time imagining PTA attacking someone at a Starbucks.
I think Tarantino's got more god-given talent as a writer but PTA's just done the better work by far, Pulp Fiction I think you could argue is better than any PTA film but other than that I'd take PTA's filmography in a heartbeat
Pulp fiction better than any PTA film? I seriously doubt that, Magnolia is better than any QT film and that's a fact
Emsee dude come on, Pulp Fiction changed cinema, and is undisputed one of the best films of all time. Magnolia was great, very moving, but was over 3 hours, had unnecessary stories, and rained fucking frogs at the end!
GiantSandles Id actually love to see anyone argue Pulp Fiction is even in the same league as There Will be Blood or The Master. Pulp Fiction’s greatness is based on a gimmick, while both There Will Be Blood and The Master actually have something to say. Leaving aside, of course, how much better those two films are from a filmmaking perspective (Directing, cinematography, acting, editing, production design, etc.)
leonardo zumaeta rojas in terms of production design, editing, cinematography, do you realize you’re comparing a 1994 film which was only the director’s 2nd film, 1st with a major studio and actually some money to make it, to films made in 2007 and 2012 from a filmmaker who’s been at it for 10+ years already? Like obviously those films are gonna have better production design, editing, cinematography. But if you’re talking about Inglorious Basterds, The Hateful Eight, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, they are easily in the same league as There Will Be Blood and The Master, maybe even better. And Pulp Fiction doesn’t have anything to say? It’s one of the most influential films of all time...
There’s no reason to tear one of these filmmakers down while building one up, they are both extraordinary directors/writers who have made massive contributions to the film industry and will be remembered forever.
@@Billie0708 100% no argument.
Tarantino is, for me, very talented director, and writer, of course. i respect huge his work and his thought, obvious, but i'm not agree when he give hard opinions about, for example, Kubrick or other, simply because them are no near with his idea of cinema..
Paul body of work might be deep and moving but there are no other like quentin....
There Will Be Blood and Boogie Nights are in my top ten. Once Upon A Time and Pulp Fiction are in my top ten. Then theres Kubrick movies. Dazed and Confused...Oh fuck, I'm creating a top ten. Fuck this.
They share the same way of getting more interested in the scenes than in the movie as a hole.
they are both students of scorese
Among others, of course
It's weird that he hasn't mentioned any of Paul's films from the 2010s. I guess he's not a fan.
Did you listen to the interview? Tarantino is talking about the release of "Inglourious Basterds," which was released in 2009. This interview is from before the 2010s.
Post There Will Be Blood, PTA's movies look as if they are made only for critics, I tried to watch Inherent Vice on 4 different occasions but couldn't get past the first hour. It was so confusing and boring. But going back to Magnolia and Boogie Nights, he was phenomenal.
Death Proof and Inherent Vice are their self indulgent projects
What do you mean made for critics. Lots of people including myself have loved his recent films . Granted they are less mainstream but you so realise that doesnt me worse right?
The Master was amazing
PTA has a certain something about him
Good that PTA inspired him to up his game. As much fun it was hanging out with Robert Rodriguez, making B movies, he wasn't going to make anything as amazing as Basterds that will be remembered decades after its release.
quentin isnt as intelligent as Paul tbh. A movie like "there will be blood' or "The Master " isnt even on his wave length . Could he have come up with Boogie Nights ? yeah, and Maybe Magnolia, and Inherent Vice.. Dont get me wrong. I love his movies and he is great, But PTA's mind is on another Orson Welles like level.
Ben Ashworth
Then don't write useless shit like " PTS is another level" if you don't want people to get you wrong.
@@balabanasireti Yeah how come everybody is being a prick in the comment section here
@@anaveragefilmmaker1422 Because people want other people to know that they prefer pta to qt even though this video was anything but hostile
Passione Nera the fact that PTA is, indeed, in another level doesn’t mean he can’t enjoy Tarantino’s films
Boogie nights best pta
Why is every comment talking about which one is better like damn can’t there just be a friendly chat about ppl who respect each other without blasting preferences
When did Tarantino become count chocula? Judging from these pics, they'd both have a vague aroma of nut stink about them.
But at the end Paul Thomas Anderson and his movies are better.
Where is this from??
VOLT14 Tarantino introduces There Will Be Blood for Sky Movies
pta is the best i prefer PTA
Quentin saying hes better than PTA is the funniest thing hes ever done
Listen again pal he never saidbhe was better than Paul. He said he is a better filmmaker because Paul is there to inspire him.
Nope, that’s common sense that a lot of directors are better than PTA
@@hood6089 haha PTA is the best American filmmaker from the 90s working today no one is on his level
@@matthewbishop8395 that’s only your opinion lol. Doesn’t mean you’re right.
After reservoir dog's, Tarantino has only made slightly if not full fledged satires. They're wonderful but I'd like to see if he has a higher function. And honestly, and no disrespect to QT, he shouldn't consider himself in the same league as PTA.
‘They’re movies before There Will be Blood and movies after There Will be Blood’. Cinema changed after that PTA masterpiece and no one can deny it.
Theyre both awesome and will go down as top of their generation. But man reading all the comments here truly shows how insufferable QT and PTA fanboys really are.
A lot of people on here hating on Tarantino for his character is not having a lot of emotional depth clearly haven’t seen Jackie Brown
Chris Cleff the problem is that it’s his best movie. He saw it didn’t sell well and he reverted back to every character sounding like Quentin Tarantino in every movie going forward. Jackie Browne had actual characters. Hence why it’s the best. Max Cherry is one of the best ever.
You're right and yet most Tarantino fans I know don't like Jackie Brown, so maybe I'm more annoyed with his fans than him lol.
someone you'll disagree with , yeah lot of them are film school kids who worship QT and think Pulp Fiction is the best movie ever. I get your annoyance with them.
yeah and it's based on an Elmore Leonard novel.. hence why that is
Sorry but Tarantino's pomposity is stomach churning. I'll tell it how it is; if Tarantino is Warhol then Anderson is Da Vinci.
Licorice Pizza > Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
True, but Hollywood is def tarantinos best in a while.
I love PTA but his last two outings have been 6/10 mediocre forgettable films
I liked Hollywood too.
PTA is the better director overall. It’s pretty clear that QT thinks he’s better.
My 2 favourite directors
My #1 and #2 directors ❤️
I prefer Tanrantino alot more, I'm a visual person, not in the "look at this beautifully shot mountain scene" but like "look at this guy getting shot in the head in the most unique way possible."
QT couldn't make a PTA film