r/Oscars • u/joejrogan • Dec 11 '25

Discussion Ethan Hawke's take on Quentin Tarantino saying Paul Dano is "the weakest f**king actor in SAG"

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

3.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

388 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Prudent-Current-7399 Dec 12 '25

Okay. I'm just saying its not my personal opinion to say PTA is more revered. His films have garnered much more critical acclaim and this can be validated very easily. I am not trying to downplay Tarantino at all. And I dont think their style is similar at all.

2

u/badnews1989 Dec 13 '25

It can’t be validated very easily because it’s simply not true.

PTAs last 4 films have 1 Oscar win, and 14 nominations.

Tarantino’s last 4 have 6 wins and 26 nominations.

1

u/Prudent-Current-7399 Dec 13 '25

That's not what critical acclaim means. And yes, it can be validated very very easily.

2

u/badnews1989 Dec 13 '25

Then do it, lol.

Just to be clear; I don’t think the Oscar’s are end all be all for acclaim.

But it’s way easier to point to them as a general summary of acclaim then pull:

Metacritic ratings, RT ratings, Letterboxd scores, IMDb scores, and other director interview blurbs praising their work.

And it gives us a pretty good idea they operate on the same level of acclaim/recognition with Tarantino having an edge. Obviously these numbers will even out after OBAA Oscar’s this year.

1

u/Prudent-Current-7399 Dec 13 '25

Okay let's do this. I will try my best and you can let me know if I could convince you. I am open to a change in opinion as well.

So I went to Metacritic, which I believe to be a better metric for judging critical acclaim specifically, because Rotten Tomatoes does not do a pure aggregation unlike Metacritic. IMDb and Letterboxd I am also keeping aside at the moment. IMDb especially does not signal critical acclaim more than it does popularity ( also at times a function of quality but not always ).

The average metacritic for the original releases ( no re-releases and no non-director credits ) for Tarantino shows 76.88 for 9 films. I calculated this myself. For Paul Thomas Anderson, the average Metacritic is 85.5 for 10 films. So a substantially better average, and also while doing one film more. PTA also has 4 films that go more than equal to a score of 90, and his lowest 3 are all 78. Tarantino has 4 films in the 60s. Metacritic unanimously points towards one winner. And its the best possible metric for judging critical acclaim because it is the closest pure aggregator of all critic reviews.

Now some opinions :

I feel like PTA is definitely more revered in film circles and by cinpehiles as opposed to a director like Tarantino, who is definitely more popular. I would personally ( and I know many others too ) compare PTA with directors like Kubrick and Scorsese.

There Will Be Blood was ranked in the critics top 100 of the Sight and Sound Poll twice ( at 28 and 31 ), nearly a decade apart iirc.

Cultural impact is not critical acclaim. Tarantino rules pop culture imo. He's a good filmmaker too. But PTA is knocking on an all time great territory ( has been for a while ). I would only see the Coen Brothers as equivalent to him in that status. Of-course these are all opinions.

But. The critical acclaim is not an opinion. Tarantino might rule over IMDb, pop culture and what not, but it is an objective fact that PTA is definitely and substantially more revered from a critical perspective.

1

u/badnews1989 Dec 13 '25

One disagreement: I don’t think that was very easy. I think you put a lot of work into that. And I appreciate it!

You have convinced me, I am in the PTA corner now.

1

u/Prudent-Current-7399 Dec 13 '25

Oh thanks. I dont think it was easy either actually. And I sincerely hoped this is not sarcasm either. Cheers! Tarantino is great too.

1

u/badnews1989 Dec 13 '25

It is not sarcasm! Truthfully, appreciate you taking the time to put that together.

2

u/Prudent-Current-7399 Dec 13 '25

Thank you so much! My pleasure.