I'll agree with you Rocket: Spielberg has lost his luster. I would heavily disagree with you on Quentin Tarantino though. The "general public" does not line up for his movies. While his work is gradually becoming more mature and accessible to random public movie goers, it is still extremely nuanced in a way that keeps him out of the mainstream.

I'd also heavily dos agree with Ash on the average movie goer knowing Tarantino and not one of the others he listed. The average movie goer may know the name Tarantino better than the others, but I doubt they have seen a QT movie and not a film by the others.

Tarantino has been awful since Kill Bill. Dude let his success go to his head and now his films are ruined by self-indulgence.

You could say the same for anyone who becomes successful. Once you start making money that becomes your driving force, regardless of how idealistic you were when you started out.

The golden age directors and the younger ones from the 60s and early 70s, I think had a better grip on how to mix artistry and entertainment than a lot of today’s directors do. These directors also, in one way or another, worked with restrictions. Whether it was the studio system, live television, or small budgets, they were able to make successful entertainment and art with what they had. Jaws, as it stands, isn’t what Spielberg planned to make, but it’s what he was able to make by improvising and working around the problems he had on set. A director today would either cry to the studio or “fix” the problem with CGI.

I agree with the other posters about Tarantino. He’s still popular with his audience, but I don’t think average people are lining up in droves to see his movies anymore. I was a fan back in the day, but kinda got tired of him in recent years. The guy knows how to make movies, but I feel like he couldn't make a movie that wasn't inspired by spaghetti westerns or blaxploitation or 70s kung fu movies.

I wouldn't say "ruined" as I still love most of Tarantino's output but he definitely needs to reign himself in a bit. And find a decent editor to properly replace Sally Menke.

I get frustrated when talented directors lose their restraint or phone it in. Martin Scorsese's recent output has also been extremely disappointing to me as a life-long fan.

I'm sure the studios would prefer that there won't be any more superstar directors. Competent, off-the-shelf directors must be a lot cheaper. No egos, no delays, no percent of gross. The new star is the franchise, and the studios own all of those in their entirety.

I think this is kind of funny, as I would argue his earlier work was more self-indulgent while his recent work is more self-aggrandizing. His recent work shows more restraint, but he feels his work is cinematic history just because he is a film geek. That is where I struggle with him -- I admire his passion and knowledge as well as his ability to do what he wants. I just think he is an autistic version of Kevin Smith.

This. Studio heads and producers want to be able to "direct behind the scenes".

Somebody mentioned being "George Lucased" by the studios. Lucas attempted other movies, but he never found success with them. He made the Star Wars movies outside of the studio system. He wasn't shoehorned by the studios.

I don't know, most of his films have pulled in some serious dollars, especially for R rated movies. Django Unchained made over $400 Million! His last two have even been given prime Christmas day releases. I'd say his audience is pretty mainstream at this point.

From what I've been reading it sounds like Silence may be a return to greatness for Scorsese. Though it's tough to say since critics seem to jizz all over Scorsese flicks no matter what.

I think that there a lot of directors that, twenty years from now, will be seen as "superstars." But let's face it: most of the superstar directors of the past weren't really household names; if they had been the studio marketing departments wouldn't have felt the need to list a popular film by the same director on the posters and in the ads for their latest films. As an example, the window card for The Apartment also featured the blurb "A Billy Some Like It Hot Wilder Production." A notable exception to this is Alfred Hitchcock, who realized fairly early on that self-promotion was the key to becoming a known name. It also helped that he had a TV show with his name in the title, and he edited a gazillion books of short stories with his name prominently displayed.

But getting back to the main question, I think that the following directors who haven't been mentioned yet will be seen as superstars in the years to come:

Darren Aronofsky
Danny Boyle
Steven Soderbergh
Ang Lee
The Coen Brothers

I'll admit that it looks like his best movie since Bringing Out the Dead, but I've got 15 years of lowered expectations to come to terms with.

Maybe Ben Affleck someday. We'll have to see how Live By Night does, but it's not like it's being heavily sold as a Ben Affleck film. He doesn't seem interested in being a superstar director, despite the fact that he's making the next solo Batman movie.

Pretty much this. That's why you have all these randos directing blockbuster movies these days with one little indie on their resume.

I might never watch a movie again. HATE his movies with a fiery passion.

Django Unchained did $400 million WORLDWIDE. Domestically it was was under $163 million, less than some opening weekends of mainstream movies. Django Unchained appealed to a larger/different audience than most of QT's work does not.

If QT was reaching mass audiences, Hateful 8 should have matched that or come close. It did $155 million worldwide, $54 million was domestic. That is a 2/3 drop off from his previous film. I don't think he is reaching the average American movie going public.

Here are his top 6 according to Box Office Mojo (I removed Crimson Tide, which was #5 on their list). http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/...=tarantino.htm

Worldwide (Unadjusted)
Title (click to view).....Worldwide..Domestic..Year

Django Unchained......$425.4.......$162.8.....2012

Inglourious Basterds...$321.5.......$120.5.....2009

Pulp Fiction................$213.9.......$107.9....1994

Kill Bill Vol. 1..............$180.9.......$70.1......2003

The Hateful Eight........$155.8.......$54.1......2015

Kill Bill Vol. 2..............$152.2.......$66.2......2004

Jaimee Foxx had a lot to do with Django's success. It was a curiosity. Hateful 8 had Samuel Jackson - been there, done that, in terms of being in a QT flick.

Agreed. As good of an actor as he is, SLMFJ (Samuel L. Mother Fucker Jackson) is not a headlining draw anymore. I'm not a Jamie Fox fan, but he was a big part of the Django draw at the time. The blaxploitation angle along with the Oscar nods also pushed Django along. Likewise, Brad Pitt and the Oscar nods helped fuel Inglorious Basterds.

I'm not saying QT isn't a draw or selling factor, I'm saying he is not a mainstream draw. He has a fan base and niche-talent, but Mr. and Mrs. Average Filmgoer aren't lining up on date night because it is a QT flick.

Which makes me wonder what director has EVER been a mainstream draw for Mr. And Mrs. Average Filmgoer? Even with Spielberg in the 80s or Christopher Nolan today I wonder if J6P has ever gone for the director name or because it's an event movie they were told to see.

Maybe Hitchcock?

And so did Leo.

There was certainly a time when it was that way for Woody Allen. And Kubrick.

Spielberg definitely, especially in his 80s-90s prime.

Hitchcock is the perfect example. He really caught on after his tv show started in 1955. He became an on screen personality. Several trailers for his films hardly show any scenes, or story details, just Hitch talking to the audience. That was all the information required to sell the movie to the public.