Damn... Both are incredible storytellers in their own ways and MASTER directors, especially visually. Both are capable of "EPICS" in their own ways. Both have strengths but both have weaknesses. Both have made films that have divided some, yet both still have strong followings and neither have yet to "Jump the shark" so to speak. Watch them both before they had the track record and bank to get their visions financed the way they both can now and you still see brilliance even with limited resources (MEMENTO, RESERVOIR DOGS). Both are pretty detail orientated in terms of production designs, and both have their obvious influences (and there's NOT A GODDAMNED THING WRONG WITH THAT).
Still... I gotta go with Q over N here.
There are a few things that put Tarantino over the top for me. He has an ear for dialog, and no, it's not just hipster, pop culture references, as he's shown in DJANGO and BASTERDS. There is always a propulsive energy to his work and a need to drink in the entirety of the images on the screen with Q. Yes, Nolan too is a visual delight, and there is detail there but I find it more along the lines of total perfection, even things like establishing shots for Nolan seem scrubbed of vitality, as though he was even able to set dress the mountains in THE PRESTIGE. Yes, Q also set dresses things to an inch of their life almost, but then it still looks like an alive world, a world people, no matter how outrageous, are living in. While I understand the sentiment that Tarantino can be too cool for his own good... Nolan can simply be too cool in temperature. I think this may be another way that I simply prefer Q to N... Q is a director that gets his actors to really breath life into stories that are already full of life. Nolan, despite his mastery, seems content with his players simply doing the minimum I think. It kinda comes through with lots of his work. That's not to say he's terrible at getting the best from his actors, and he knows who to work with, but with Tarantino, he seems to be able to get his performers to make his writing SING. (Yes... TDK's Joker is an exception... That is the key though, a character THAT engaging, that magically alive, one that makes you go, "when is THAT GUY coming back on the screen?" That is a bit of an anomaly in a Nolan film I think.)
I could go on but, despite losing TDKT (which... I do find overrated among fans anyway, as great as BB and TDK are), THE PRESTIGE and INCEPTION... YEAH... Despite all that, if I had to lose RESERVOIR DOGS, PULP FICTION, JACKIE BROWN, KILL BILL 1&2, BASTERDS, DJANGO hell, even the directors cut or DEATH PROOF... Sorry Chris. One film maker while intellectual and masterful and rewarding my close watching gets trumped by the other director that is also masterful, intellectual, also rewards close watching but he's also hella engaging, fun, FUNNY, visceral, wide ranging in tone across films and better at getting memorable performances out of his actors.
Q>N if the choice HAS to be made, for myself, anyway.
