See this poll on: https://poll.fm/8299615/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Tarantino's choices would just be more fun; Kung fu, trash, action.
MAN i am disappointed with everyone voting scoresese. Sure, he would probably pick all the "masterful" movies, but really, that would get dull. sure, they are all black and white, beautifully scored italian masterpieces. But Tarantino's picks would shake things up, give you tons of variety, and get you to rethink the way maybe you look at a lot of movies. Come on guys, movies are meant to be FUN to be Entertaining. and Tarantinos picks would certainly be that, week in week out. Tarantino all the way and ain't nobody changing my mind.
It was easy for me to choose Tarantino. In Austin, TX we have a chance to see a lot of the great classics on the big screen- many of which were named in Scorsese's top 10 films as read on the podcast. I've heard Tarantino talk about movies several times and i feel he would program a much wider variety of films that I may never have a chance to see in a theater. And obviously, Brian De Palma's Carrie is an effing masterpiece.
This is so fascinating, because I prefer Tarantino's films to Scorsese's films any day (ducking!) but I LOVE the Italian filmmakers and the film choices in the Scorsese list far more than some of the too-cool-for-school mostly only fun when high movies on the Tarantino list. That's a different kind of pleasure all its own, and I do look forward to the reopening of my beloved Beverly Cinema. Thanks for a great poll!
What is with artists and art critics? Always going out of their way to honor the obscure even if it means snubbing an obvious great. How is it that neither Scorsese nor Tarantino have The Godfather, Godfather II, or Casablanca in their top 10 favorite films? The Bad News Bears? Carrie? And Adam would have us take Tarantino's list seriously? Come on.
What is the problem with obvious choices for the 10 ten best films list?. GF I &II, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, Wizard of OZ, Raiders of the Lost Ark and so on. I think these two directors suffer from the same disorder Adam and Josh do from time to time. Guys, it's okay to put Annie Hall and Lawrence of Arabia in your top 10, even though the films weren't made by Korean filmmakers in the 1930's.
Nick Moses
Simi Valley
Though I prefer Tarantino as a film maker in general, I think I'd be spending a bit more time at the Scorsese theatre. However, can we all agree these two should just focus on MAKING MORE MOVIES?!?
correction - writes
Scorsese also rights a monthly column for TCM.
This isn't event close. While I applaud Tarantino's adamant efforts toward preserving and exhibiting 35mm, his interest in film history is rather limited to canonical films and a lot of exploitation cinema. Scorsese meanwhile has used his power to fight to preserve and redefine film history at all costs. His work with the Film Foundation has saved not just Powell & Pressburger but avant-garde films, forgotten gems from the studio era, and a now feminist classic like Barbara Loden's WANDA. And his work with the World Cinema Foundation has opened viewers' eyes to major works from Senegal, Egypt, The Phillipines, and Thailand. Scorsese's view of silent film history is still a little too much of following the old model, but no filmmaker has done more for bringing film history alive and making it accessible to contemporary viewing publics. Just knowing he records TCM 24/7 in the chance of finding and preserving a new classic says what you need to know about why he would run the greatest repertory house ever made. It wouldn't be about just showing us films we already love - it would be about finding new ways to love cinema.
I voted for QT but am very excited to see Scorsese's Masterpieces of Polish Cinema which is a nine film event happening at the Detroit Film Theater Thanksgiving weekend. Don't know how many I will be able to get too, but I'm hoping to sneak away for at least a few.
Martin Scorsese may have more universal critically acclaimed movies, but Quentin Tarantino I imagine would come up with more diverse films, as well as some rare films that go under the radar, movies that I may never discover without Tarantino's recommendation, which is why I voted for him.
At my time of voting Scorcese was about 100 votes ahead and to be honest I can't say I'm surprised. I would certainly not complain at the chance to enroll in the Scorcese film school and catch up with the vast array of American classics and world cinema greats I am sure he would put on every week. However, my vote goes with Tarantino because I feel he would deliver a much more diverse and potentially harder to view line up of films. He has already confirmed that he will be showing his own personal collection of 35mm prints and in fact has said everything he shows will only be in 35mm prints. Sure, we'll get some tacky Italian horror for every bona fide classic he puts on but you can't deny how much more fun that would be than the nightly homework being dished out from the school of Scorcese - of which most films are likely to be available on Criterion and other quality home video releases. So as much I aspire to be the model student and work my way up to Arthouse Adam status, this time round I am going with the newer, edgier Grindhouse Kempenaar - the one who chooses 'The Great Escape' over 'The Grand Illusion'!
Sorry--Josh's argument as to which director I would want programming my theater sold me on Tarantino. I don't even *like* the guy, but...Jaws? Apocalypse Now? Carrie? *These* are the movies that I would want to see on a big screen--at least over movies like 8 1/2 and The River.
I apologize, Society; I acknowledge that I am part of the problem.
bloods vs crips
west coast vs east coast
The New Beverley vs IFC Centre
Not only am I an east coast guy, but Martin Scorsese's A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Pictures is the most seminal piece of films schooling/film history I have ever seen. Tarantino is only going to wear me down with a butt-numb-athon style marathon of Z Channel films where as Marty will actually stimulate my curiosity and passion to seek out lost films and support the Film Foundation. Scorsese all the way. Also, even if we are screening cult films at the New Beverley I kind of want to lean slightly towards Edgar Wright over QT, when he programmed a week at the Bloor Cinema in Toronto while making Scott Pilgrim I relished almost every one of his selections. Although if I could see Twisted Nerve with a live orchestra accompaniment QT might get my vote there.
film foundation ...cannon films
Z Channel
I went with Tarantino. Scorsese has the more intellectual, academically important list, but, man, watching some of those films would just feel like homework. Yeah, they're films I should see in order to be well rounded, but I'm not going to enjoy it. Tatantino's choices just felt more watchable to me.
I went with Tarantino. Scorsese has the more intellectual, academically important list, but, man, watching some of those films would just feel like homework. Yeah, they're films I should see in order to be well rounded, but I'm not going to enjoy it. Tatantino's choices just felt more watchable to me.
I'd like to see Scorsese program the films and hear Tarantino talk about them. Everyone wins.
I live in Portland, OR, so I went with Tarantino. He is more likely to draw the hipsters. We'll serve PBR, locally sourced vegan hand-striped candy, and ironic popcorn. I'll make a fortune.
If you've seen the movies that Tarantino has directed, then I feel that you've already seen his favorite films. He's unabashedly paying homage to his favorites in all of his own films.
I'm picking Tarentino because I think his choices would more likely be films I have not yet seen or even heard of. I love both classic and cult films. The latter category is much more vast and I think Tarentino's video store apprenticeship gives him an edge. I might hate half of his picks or more, but I'm fairly sure that each of them would have some interesting or redeeming facet. For example: I will probably never watch "The Creeping Terror" again, but I'm glad I saw it once.
It's not even a contest for me. Yes, both men are very into cinema and would take great pains to create a coherent program at any time, but Scorsese is head and shoulders above anyone else in the industry. His passion for film history and restoration puts him over the top. Not to mention the fact that he has an age advantage over Tarantino. Also, Tarantino's tastes can be somewhat erratic whereas Scorsese is going to educate the public with films they absolutely need to see. Marty knows what's up.
I honestly cannot vote in this poll. So instead I am going to pull an Adam-style cheat and say that I want them to program together. Scorsese would program that "prime time" line up (the 7:00 p.m. shows) and Tarantino would be in charge of the midnight shows. This way each director to program to their strengths and loves in the cinematic world. However, to come to Tarantino's defense a bit, we do have to keep in mind that in addition to his love of 70's exploitation films and other kinds of "trashy" films, he also is pretty much the reason that, at least in the US, we know the name Wong Kar-Wai because of his involvement with getting Chungking Express distributed here in the U.S. So I do think that Tarantino's interests are broader than they appear at first glance. Nevertheless, we do need them both to get the broadest possible experience.
As a side note, Josh needs to get over the idea that a repertory theater's only purpose is to show "classic" or "art" films. There is also value in seeing films that are not quite so revered by critics. You also go to the movie often just to have a good time!
It seems like a battle between junk food and fine dining, but the truth is more muddled.
Most of Scorsese's passion is focused on preserving film classics, but he has shown his admiration for the kinds of work that we'd think would be on the Tarantino list, like Murder by Contract. I also recall Marty having a fondness for Bobcat Goldthwait's Shakes the Clown.
With Tarantino, you know what you'll get. A Whtiman's sampler of maligned remakes (I can see him formulating a The Truth About Charlie being superior to Charade in my head), exploitation films and modern classics.
I think you'd also have to factor in the audience here. With one, there would undoubtedly be a more mannered group and the other would have the fanboy contingent wanting to shout at the screen..
My preference would be Scorsese with the caveat that he'd have to show at least one of these wild cards. With Tarantino, I have a good idea of the experience.
Tarantino may be more unpredictable and interesting, but Scorsese's probably a more consistent, reliable programmer. I need certainty in this world, and I know Scorsese's not going to program Paul W.S Anderson's The Three Musketeers.
I saw Scorsese speak before a screening of the restored "Life and Death of Col. Blimp". Scorsese championed that restoration. I'd say that he and Tarantino are neck and neck when it comes to passion for cinema, but I give Scorsese the edge for his appreciation of World Cinema of all genres. They both would produce great double features but I think I'd learn more from Scorsese.
I saw Scorsese speak before a screening of the restored "Life and Death of Col. Blimp". Scorsese championed that restoration. I'd say that he and Tarantino are neck and neck when it comes to passion for cinema, but I give Scorsese the edge for his appreciation of World Cinema of all genres. They both would produce great double features but I think I'd learn more from Scorsese.
If we were able to hear them speak about each film they chose before the screenings, I would choose Scorsese all the way. But based solely on the films, I think I would have a go with Tarantino.
I think this comes down to a matter of cult vs. classic. With Scorsese you are going to get the classics, films that have stood the test of time and deserve to be shown on screens. With Tarantino you are more often going to get films you dislike but it will also allow you to appreciate genres that don't get the same attention as classic art films. Ultimately though I have to side with Scorsese here because I just don't think Tarantino has the wide global appreciation of films like Scorsese does. Yes Tarantino can quote every grindhouse film from the 70s but would you really trust him to curate a retrospective on African films? Or Polish films? Or silent films? Tarantino's influences are vast but they don't seem to extend past European, American, and Asian cinema. To me it's worth missing out on some unknown cult movies to become a world cinema traveler like Scorsese.
I have to go with Tarantino.. anyone who worked in a Video shop back in the day knows how to cater for the tastes of the public. Those days were different, there is so much choice on netflix and the like. I remember our local video shop we visited often. The person working there able to pick such great films for our family, we always trusted him, always got a result. If Tarantino has kept these skills and can apply them to this new awesome role.. then I'm sure he'll please..
This is a really tough decision, but I gotta go with Tarantino. I think Tarantino explores such a wide range of genres that Scorsese might not necessarily dive into. Tarantino would also explore the Italian Neo-Realism that Scorsese seems to worship, but in doing so wouldn't leave it at solely that. Regardless, you couldn't go wrong with either.
Film-for-film, I think Tarantino has the stronger body of work, but Scorsese seems to me to have a wider knowledge of cinema, and is more interested in different voices from all over the world, whereas QT's taste is more isolated and nostalgic. But yeah, no wrong answer here.
I love both of these directors, and think that a theatre programmed by either is like Christmas happening on a weekly basis, but I have to lend this one to Scorsese. It's a matter of personal taste, and given the choice I'll always side with Italian Neo-Realism over grindhouse. There's no wrong answer here, but for me it's Scorsese. This battle is Bicycle Thieves over Breathless, but, really, either way we'd be lucky to hear either one of these gentlemen talk about their weekly screening choices for four straight hours without interruption, break, or even prompting. A boy can dream...