I'm wondering which you prefer :
A director who can crank out movie after movie for decades with some being being better than others (think Speilberg , Howard, Scott etc)
Or
A director who takes years to make a movie, making up a much shorter filmography but a more consistently critically acclaimed one. (Think Tarantino, Malik, Kubrick in the second half of his life, etc).
Do you think its more impressive to make a lot of movies and have some hits and misses or take make fewer movies and have them all be critically acclaimed?
EDIT: to rephrase the question (I'm pretty sure everyone prefers quality over quantity), which do you think is worthy of more praise in the film community. Which type of director do you respect more?
Submitted March 09, 2018 at 03:24AM by TheGogues http://ift.tt/2G5VRVO