Quentin Tarantino expressed admiration for the initial season of Yellowstone, but he noted that the seasons that followed did not leave a lasting impression. He highlighted a common characteristic he perceives in the realm of prestige television, suggesting that many series fail to create memorable narratives that resonate with viewers. This sentiment reflects a broader critique of contemporary television, where the depth and impact of storytelling can sometimes be overshadowed by production values and star power.

When discussing the evolution of prestige television, we refer to a transformative period that began in the early 2000s, a time when networks began to significantly invest in high-quality dramas once again. This shift not only led to increased production budgets but also attracted top-tier talent, both in front of and behind the camera. The cinematic quality of storytelling began to mirror that of feature films, creating a captivating experience for viewers. However, traditionalists, particularly those who hold cinema in high regard, often argue that prestige TV can’t compete with the emotional and narrative depth of movies. Notably, this includes voices like Quentin Tarantino, who remains a staunch advocate for the art of cinema.

During a candid conversation on Joe Rogan’s podcast, alongside Roger Avary, Tarantino shared his perspective on the current landscape of prestige television. He acknowledged that while modern television has garnered a substantial following and exhibits impressive quality, it ultimately cannot replace the unique essence of cinema. He stated, “Everybody talks about how television is now. It’s pretty good, I gotta say. It’s pretty good now. But it’s still television to me. And what’s the difference between television and a good movie? Because a lot of the TV now has the patina of a good movie. They are using cinematic language to get you caught up in it.” This observation emphasizes the ongoing debate about the distinctions between these two storytelling mediums.

Tarantino described the first season of Yellowstone as a standout example of prestige TV, praising its cinematic quality and engaging narrative. However, he expressed disappointment with the subsequent seasons, noting that they failed to leave a lasting impact on him. He remarked on the difficulty of recalling key villains or story arcs from later seasons, saying, “The difference is I’ll see a good Western movie, and I’ll remember it for the rest of my life. I’ll remember the story, this scene and that scene. It built to an emotional climax of some degree. The story is good. It’s not just about the interpersonal relationships. But there’s a payoff to it. There is not a payoff on TV stuff. It’s more interconnected drama.” His critique highlights a perceived lack of resolution and emotional payoff in ongoing television narratives compared to standalone films.

Recently, Tarantino faced backlash for his enthusiastic remarks about Joker: Folie à Deux, and he may encounter further criticism for his views on prestige television. Although his appreciation for shows like Yellowstone is noteworthy, it raises questions about his overall perspective on television as a medium. Some argue that the rise of television has stifled the mid-budget films that once flourished in theaters. However, it’s essential to recognize that film and television operate within distinct realms, each with its own narrative standards and expectations. Thus, while critiques may be valid, there is little merit in comparing the two directly.

What are your thoughts on Quentin Tarantino’s perspective regarding prestige TV? Do you believe he has valid points about the differences between television and cinema?