"QT churns out consistent B+/A level movies, but his commercial success has only really risen dramatically with OUATIH"
What the hell are you talking about? OUATIH wasn't even Tarantino's most successful film. Django Unchained holds that title, having earned a total of $425 million on a budget of $100 million. But even before that, Inglourious Basterds wasn't far off with its total gross of $321 million on a $70 million budget compared to OUATIH's $374 million against its $90 million budget. Are you afraid of Google or something?
"if anything, both directors just hit the height of their careers with a combination of high box office receipts & critical praise... it's just that Singer's last movie made a shit-ton more than QT's"
Uh, no. Singer hasn't made a hit film with critics since X-Men: Days of Future Past. X-Men: Apocalypse was actually a bit of a dud with critics, earning a 47% on RottenTomatoes and a 52 on Metacritic. Bohemian Rhapsody did a bit better, but still only earned a mere 60% on RottenTomatoes and a 49 on Metacritic. Again, why so scared of Google, man?
Singer is at the high point of his career financially, but his hit-to-miss ratio is still much less consistent than Tarantino's. Studios always trust directors who can consistently churn in profits much more than directors who sometimes makes mega hits, while other times making disappointments or straight up flops in some cases. I bet if you were to ask any sane producer who they'd trust more to earn profits on their films, they'd all unanimously vote Tarantino. Do you get it now?
reply
share
legnadibrom (5697)
3 years ago
i'm not too sure what producers & studios have to do when weighing the success of directors, we're talking box office receipts sprinkled with a dash of critic response,
the opinion of a sane producer is of no consequence to me or this discussion,
& the last time i checked $900 million ducats was more than $425, hmmmm,
not to mention that the original X-men film kickstarted the whole comic book movie fadeof late - it's time to lay the bones down on the table & pay BS his due
reply
share
filmgeek99 (591)
3 years ago
"i'm not too sure what producers & studios have to do when weighing the success of director"
You're joking, right? Do you seriously not grasp how the more successful a director is, the more likely studios and producers are to trust them?
Let me ask you, who would you personally trust more to earn you back a profit? The guy with a hit rate of 6/11, or the guy with the 9/10?
P.S. Singer isn't even the guy mainly responsible for the modern superhero craze, that honor goes to Sam Raimi with his big screen adaptation of Spider-Man
reply
share
legnadibrom (5697)
3 years ago
you're biased bro,
you blindly catapult QT up amongst the film gods & deride BS like he's done something personal against you, he may be a gay perv but you have to remember that QT not only has an incredibly deep foot fetish but also foists his fetishism onto the big screen for any & all to witness, effectively mainstreaming an obsession with feet as sexual objects
reply
share
filmgeek99 (591)
3 years ago
I'm biased? You're the one who keeps pulling further and further away from the main discussion here. We started off talking about the two directors' critical and financial successes only, and now you just randomly bring up Tarantino's much discussed foot fetish. And you say I'm trying to deride Singer? Once again, man, you're fucking crazy. I also like how you seem more disgusted with Tarantino's foot fetish than you are with Singer's alleged sexual abuse of minors. Nice to see where your priorities lie.
All I did was state facts. You clearly couldn't handle accepting the truth that your boy, Bryan Singer, wasn't anywhere near as successful as you make him out to be. At the end of the day, he's just another work-for-hire journeyman studio director who sometimes makes mega hits, but whom always has to rely on the name of an established IP like X-Men or Queen to garner any kind of major audience. Without an established brand name under his belt, his movies tend to always either underperform or straight up bomb both with critics and audiences alike. The only film of his that's ever been truly successful in both regards that isn't a part of X-Men, is The Usual Suspects. Deal with it.
reply
share