Quote:

---

Another thing that hurts a lot of movies from 2000-2023 is they will not be a director or actor/actress "defining" movie. I think this will hurt movies like Training Day/Gladiator/Inglorious Basterds/There Will Be Blood/Top Gun 2.

---

Trying to figure out what this means? To me, Gladiator is Russel Crowe's apex mountain and Basterds for Christoph Waltz.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Most blockbusters will be hurt by Star Wars/Jaws/T2. If you are going to watch a blockbuster 50 years from now and you were going to show one. I think it will still be one of the early blockbusters. The other big one that hurts is a lot of the modern blockbusters are sequels. I think Iron Man would have a great chance of being a classic than say End Game. Even though I like Endgame better. I think Lord of The Rings is hurt by there being three of them.

---

You contradicted yourself here.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

I also think a Christopher Nolan movie will become a "classic". I am just not sure he has made it yet. In other words, I think his defining movie will be one of his next movies.

---

Funny how I unintentionally killed this a minute after it was posted.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The best movies of the past 25 years as voted on RT.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/rt25-fans-top-movies-of-the-last-25-years/

Nolan with the top three is impressive.

---

Also all three LOTR in the top 10.

TCTTS said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

I also think a Christopher Nolan movie will become a "classic". I am just not sure he has made it yet. In other words, I think his defining movie will be one of his next movies.

---

I'm sorry, but The Dark Knight, Inception, and Interstellar are definitive classics, each having pierced the zeitgeist/made distinct marks on pop culture in their own ways. And Oppenheimer is now rising those ranks as well.

---

Yea I don't get the non-classic argument that was made there…Inception and TDK are definitely classic. Interstellar is great, but I feel like Inception and TDK might be watched more 50 years down the line than Interstellar. Not sure why, just a feeling.

Wrong thread.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

The best movies of the past 25 years as voted on RT.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/rt25-fans-top-movies-of-the-last-25-years/

Nolan with the top three is impressive.

---

Also all three LOTR in the top 10.

---

It's a great list. Personally, I hated Parasite and think it's horribly overrated (#8 of the last 25 years? Really?) but otherwise solid selections across multiple genres.

"Yo, I'll fight him."

One really good movie I didn't see listed here that flies under the radar was Gavin O'Conner's Warrior (2011).

Hardy, Nolte, and Edgerton all give dynamite performances. And the ending timing up with The National's "About Today" is just unbelievable.

I don't see it that way. Star Wars: A New Hope functions as a stand-alone a movie as well as part of a franchise. Someone could watch A New Hope and not need to watch any other Star Wars movie to have a complete story.

In Lord of the Rings it takes all three movies for Frodo to deal with the one Ring which is introduced as the central struggle in the first movie.

That is the difference that I see between the two.

I think the point I am trying to make is not that these movies are not good or not even great, but I am not sure these movies will reach Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Citizen Kane cultural levels.

I think he will make a movie that will get there and people will talk about that movie pushing those others movies below it.

I guess the way I took the question is when AFI makes its 50th anniversary of top 100 movies in 2048, how many many movies from 2000-2023 will be on that list? I am thinking the number will be between 1-4?

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

Another thing that hurts a lot of movies from 2000-2023 is they will not be a director or actor/actress "defining" movie. I think this will hurt movies like Training Day/Gladiator/Inglorious Basterds/There Will Be Blood/Top Gun 2.

---

Trying to figure out what this means? To me, Gladiator is Russel Crowe's apex mountain and Basterds forChristoph Waltz.

---

I would argue Master and Commander for Crowe.

Basterds will be hurt by Pulp Fiction existing. Gladiator is hurt by Blade Runner.

I think my only point is not that these movies are not culturally relevant today. And. Ot worth watching, but to be a classic that survives 50+ years not that many movies from 2000-2023 will make it.

It isn't that these movies will go away and won't be watched. They will just be overshadowed.

Quote:

---

Gladiator is hurt by Blade Runner.

---

How? Yeah, I know Ridley Scott did both, but neither have anything else in common at all.

Quote:

---

Basterds will be hurt by Pulp Fiction existing. Gladiator is hurt by Blade Runner.

---

Forgive me for being slow on the uptake but I still can't figure out what this means. Can you expound?

Bruce Almighty said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

Another thing that hurts a lot of movies from 2000-2023 is they will not be a director or actor/actress "defining" movie. I think this will hurt movies like Training Day/Gladiator/Inglorious Basterds/There Will Be Blood/Top Gun 2.

---

Trying to figure out what this means? To me, Gladiator is Russel Crowe's apex mountain and Basterds forChristoph Waltz.

---

I would argue Master and Commander for Crowe.

Basterds will be hurt by Pulp Fiction existing. Gladiator is hurt by Blade Runner.

I think my only point is not that these movies are not culturally relevant today. And. Ot worth watching, but to be a classic that survives 50+ years not that many movies from 2000-2023 will make it.

It isn't that these movies will go away and won't be watched. They will just be overshadowed.

---

You have a weird definition of what makes a movie a classic. If it has to make some stupid top 100 list to be a classic, the definition to to strict. That AFI list practically ignores fantasy, sci-fi and horror. Planet of the Apes, Halloween, Terminator, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, etc are all classics.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with you but over time all things fade and become less relevant. One of the points, I admittedly was trying to make was that for something to resist the erosion of time, certain groups will promote certain works over other works so that they are remembered. AFI is one of those groups and their preferences will bias what works stay relevant.

I am not saying this is right of wrong. Or this is the way it should be. Just offering that is what happens.

Do I think people will still watch Ghostbusters in 2048? Yes. Absolutely. But I think it will be less than it is today.

And yes. I admit to being difficult and picky on what is a "classic". I don't disagree that for certain definition of a classic all the movies on this list meet that criteria. I am just saying there is a more narrow definition of let's say is "timeless classic" that not many movies will make and I was trying to see what movies from 2000-2023 would make that list in 2048 or 2098.

Belton Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Basterds will be hurt by Pulp Fiction existing. Gladiator is hurt by Blade Runner.

---

Forgive me for being slow on the uptake but I still can't figure out what this means. Can you expound?

---

I don't think you are being slow. I am also not being super clear. So apologies.

First let me restate that I am not saying Gladiator or Inglorious Basterds are not absolutely great movies and that yes, I agree they will be watched in the future. I just think other movies will last longer than them.

For Gladiator, let's assume we are in the future and someone asks if they want to watch just one Ridley Scott movie? I don't think Gladiator would be the most common answer. If they ask I want to watch just one historical drama? I don't think Gladiator will be the most common answer. If someone asked to watch just one Roman Gladiator movie would Gladiator be a more common answer than Spartacus?

I will concede that if someone asked to watch one Russell Crowe movie, then Gladiator may be the most common answer.

For Inglorious Basterds, I think Pulp Fiction will be the most common answer to the question to I want to watch one QT movie. I don't think it will the answer to the one Brad Pitt movie. And I don't mean to disrespect Christopher Waltz, who I think is a tremendous actor and amazing in everything he does, but I am not sure he is a mega-star that people will be asking to see his best movie in 50 years. I could be wrong on this point.

I fully admit I took the question posed and modified it to be better viewed as what movie in 2000-2023 will survive the longest in the future.

I just finished reading Hyperion and the book ended with the characters quoting the Wizard of Oz as a movie that survived thousands of years.

Is there a movie between 2000-2023 that is in that tier of classics?

Napoleon Dynamite

Quote:

---

Is there a movie between 2000-2023 that is in that tier of classics?

---

Lord the Rings is about it for me. There's some classic movies, but when we're talking the absolute zenith that will stand alongside The Godfather, 2001, etc, that's the one that comes to mind.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Quote:

---

Is there a movie between 2000-2023 that is in that tier of classics?

---

Lord the Rings is about it for me. There's some classic movies, but when we're talking the absolute zenith that will stand alongside The Godfather, 2001, etc, that's the one that comes to mind.

---

Yes. That is what I was getting towards. My only points against LOTR is it is three movies at about 9 hours. That is a big commitment. Plus the books may be the preferred medium long term. But I agree you could very well be correct.

I think Nolan has a future movie in him that will get to that zenith.

I see what you're saying now. While it's certainly true that someone's body of work can cause certain films to get "lost in the shuffle" to a degree, I don't know if it's true of the standout films.

Let's think about older classics. For John Ford, does The Searchers overshadow and drown out She Wore a Yellow Ribbon? Both movies were made about 70 years ago, both considered to be among his best movies with The Searchers being arguably one of the best films ever made. Movie buffs in our time watch and appreciate both as classics, do they not? Each stands on its own merits.

I think the same will be true of Gladiator when our time is gone and future movie buffs consider the classics of our era.

Yeah I think certain directors get a pass when it comes to their best work, where it won't just be one movie that gets the focus. Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Scott, Fincher all have multiple films that could reasonably get that recognition.

Belton Ag said:

---

For John Ford, does The Searchers overshadow and drown out She Wore a Yellow Ribbon?

---

I think for me the answer is the difference between S-Tier and A-Tier classics. I agree both are classics. But The Searchers will last longer. By way of reference, The Searchers was referenced in DS9 because of its slightly broader appeal and cultural relevance. I don't know if you see the same for She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. So, I think over a long enough time horizon The Searchers "classic-ness" will last longer.

You may be right that Gladiator makes the S-Tier. I just think it is in the A-Tier. To me it is the debate that makes it fun. You make good points on why Gladiator may make the S-Tier.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Yeah I think certain directors get a pass when it comes to their best work, where it won't just be one movie that gets the focus. Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan, Scott, Fincher all have multiple films that could reasonably get that recognition.

---

I agree and think this is a great criticism of my argument. Like Kubrick I think you will see a trend towards one movie (2001) start moving towards dominating the discussion about a director's work for all of these directors over a period of many decades.

Had to look up this A-tier vs S-tier thing, as these are not terms that I am familiar with. I get that there will be a general consensus as to what qualifies as "superb", but as mentioned in an earlier post, many of those lists ignore certain types of movies that I would include if I was compiling my own list.

Looking at one of my favorite directors, Ridley Scott, he did what I would call one of the greatest movies ever made in Alien. Does the existence of Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, the 2 Alien Vs. Predator comic book inspired movies, Prometheus, and Alien Covenant alter the quality of the original movie? I will argue no. Alien is often recognized as the best example of that sort of movie, a science fiction horror movie with a critter on the loose. Yet it is hardly an original tale. One can easily recognize inspiration for what became Alien in movies like Planet of the Vampires or It, the Terror From Beyond Space. Do these have any impact on the quality of Alien?

Sticking with Scott, I suggest that three of his films will indeed be considered S-tier classics in the future: Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator. Perhaps The Martian might make this list as well.

My favorite director has been Steven Spielberg. No one is going to argue that he has made a bunch of movies that will transcend time like Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and while I won't classify this one in the same level, E.T. What about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, or Jurassic Park? Is Lincoln or Munich going to be viewed as classics 100 years from now?

I absolutely agree that Chris Nolan has already made several all-time classics, as I would classify Nolan as the best director currently given his track record this century. The Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar, Inception, Oppenheimer, and even Dunkirk speak for themselves.

I still take Tarantino over Nolan as far as current working directors, but obviously Nolan has him beat in the last 10-15 years.

(And also assuming we're not counting Spielberg.)

Why would you not count Spielberg? He had a movie out last year, no?

I guess cause he's already considered one the GOATs, and it's unfair to pick out the best current director since he essentially wins by default.

May be better to argue the best director of the past 25 years.

Just want to clarify and agree on some things Cinco pointed out.

Alien is probably a permeant S-Tier movie. My point was that movies that are sequels are hurt in long term appeal because they require a predecessor movie to watch and require a greater time commitment which is likely damaging to its long term appeal.

I think Endgame is a great movie. I enjoyed Endgame. Endgame will be an all timer for me personally. But Endgame was the product of ten years of plot points spread across 20 movies. 50 years from now, will someone watch Endgame as a stand-alone alone movie and think it is an all-time great movie? I think this applies to all the MCU movies.

I will straight concede Spielberg is the GOAT. He has a range and a depth of movies that will be hard to match. But I will saw Jaws will probably dominate his blockbusters in popularity and Schindler's List his "serious" movies.

I just feel like Christopher Nolan's best movie is ahead of him. Which I agree is a very hot take. I just think he will make a movie that will be perfection and that will be the movie that has the strongest legacy.

I loved Dunkirk, I think it may be my favorite Nolan movie, but where is it in all time war movies?

This is all inherently subjective. So there isn't any right answers and I accept that I may be wrong.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I guess cause he's already considered one the GOATs, and it's unfair to pick out the best current director since he essentially wins by default.

May be better to argue the best director of the past 25 years.

---

That's a better discussion if you're including QT but leaving Spielberg off.

Quote:

---

I loved Dunkirk, I think it may be my favorite Nolan movie, but where is it in all time war movies?

---

I think this depends on the viewer. Personally I thought the movie was fantastic in its take on a well known moment in WWII history, but with Nolan's unique take on time. My wife hated it because of the stressful musical score. Then there is one of biggest regrets in my recent life - probably the two most shared experiences I had with my dad was going to movies and A&M football games. He passed early in 2018. In 2017, as it turned out, the last game we went to Kyle Field together was a beat down by Auburn, and the last movie we got to see together was Dunkirk. The movie actually put him to sleep, and what he did see of it he thought "sucked". I really thought he would enjoy Dunkirk but for whatever reason, it just didn't work for him.

As for where Dunkirk ranks among war movies, I would say pretty high, but that's just my opinion.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I still take Tarantino over Nolan as far as current working directors, but obviously Nolan has him beat in the last 10-15 years.

(And also assuming we're not counting Spielberg.)

---

I've actually never been much of a Tarantino fan. I have liked a few of his movies (Basterds, the Hollywood movie), but have not shared TA opinion on many of his others. Whereas I have yet to see a Nolan movie that I did not enjoy (I even liked Tenet quite a bit more than most).

Chipotlemonger said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

I guess cause he's already considered one the GOATs, and it's unfair to pick out the best current director since he essentially wins by default.

May be better to argue the best director of the past 25 years.

---

That's a better discussion if you're including QT but leaving Spielberg off.

---

I probably have to spend more time thinking about it and comparing filmographies, but my initial rankings would go:

1. Tarantino
2. Nolan
3. Cameron
4. Ridley Scott
5. Fincher

Although, I guess if we're going strictly by the 25 year cutoff, we lose all the QT movies before Kill Bill, so that would probably put Nolan ahead.

I guess an easier way to say it is, this would be my ranking of all living directors not named Spielberg or Scorsese.

My dad was the same way, surprisingly to me, about Dunkirk. I think it was the different timelines he didn't like.

Dunkirk is a really good movie but I'm not sure I'd have it in the Top 10 of war movies. There are so many other choices that I think are better.