I told you it was a never ending discussion

Tarantino vs. Ridley Scott over at Yglesias. He asks:

Questions about who's more overrated than whom are hard to answer because it's hard to know how highly-rated someone is. Ross and I agree that Ridley Scott is a better director than Quentin Tarantino, but Ross seems to think Tarantino is more highly rated than Scott, whereas I have the reverse impression.

Here's the difference I see:

Ridley Scott has a settled respect - almost a mini-legend - that's been attached to him. It's old gaurd prestige that comes with an admittance that his current work may not be up to snuff (though I'd argue that Black Hawk Down and Gladiator were both very good, though not great, films), but that no matter what, his place as an Important Director is cemented.

Tarantino, despite having been on the scene for more than a decade, is still an unknown quanitity. Yes, he'll certainly be in the canon of directors people talk about decades from now, but we're not really sure what's going to stick. Will it be his ability to pull nuance from crime genre thugs? Will it be his total obsession with pulp allusions? Will it be his razor sharp pop cult dialog - or maybe just a dissapation of talent as his work becomes less significant over the years.

Scott's legend, prestige and position are settled: unless he releases some utterly unexpected masterpiece (not likely, if KOH is an indication), we know approximately how history will treat him.

Tarantino is still developing, and it's going to take another decade and a few more films before his position - legend, dissapointment, or otherwise - really settles in the public mind.