>Orson Welles was 26 when he made Citizen Kane
>Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper were 29 and 33 respectively when they made Easy Rider
>Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson were 27 and 28 respectively when they made Bottle Rocket
>Quentin Tarantino was 29 when he made Reservoir Dogs
>David Lynch was 30 when he made Eraserhead
>François Truffaut was 28 when he made 400 Blows
>Joel and Ethan Coen were 30 and 27 respectively when they made Blood Simple
>Terrence Malick was 30 when he made Badlands
Aside from Hopper I am now older than every one of these men when they made their first film.
I am such a fucking failure.
Does the success of these film makers make you insecure?
All those flicks are shit desu senpai.
rich parents
>>70348533
What do you mean? You can't possibly be attributing all their creativity and and debut film success to rich parents?
Tfw you will never be special.
Ridley Scott and Ben Wheatley started making movies in their 40's
>>70349236
>iT'S NEVER TOO LATE
>>70349285
Worth noting that Ridley had directed like thousand commercials before his first movie but still. For every dude who made a masterpiece in their 20's theres a hundred terrible movies. BUT I'd say it's better to make a terrible movie when you're in your 20's and learn from it than make your first movie in your 40's and have it be garbage.
Josh Trank was 27 when he made Chronicle.
he was 31 when he killed his career with a tweet.
OP age doesn't matter, only life experience.
Shoot a movie on your fucking phone. Put it in the internet. You're now a filmmaker.
>>70347913
The only example that is exceptional there is Orson Welles. Malick, Lynch, Hopper, and Fonda, to my knowledge, really were just in the right place at the right time, especially with the push for more scholarships and funding for vets interested in film with the opening of the American film Institution. I am not belittling their creative output but there have been certain circumstances that have favored to maximize with great Liberty, their potential.
>>70349391
>BUT I'd say it's better to make a terrible movie when you're in your 20's and learn from it than make your first movie in your 40's and have it be garbage.
Probably because a young failure can live off their networking and goodwill for a while. Older failures have had to endure a lot of shit to get to that point and it's already pretty hard to bounce back from a major failure. I suppose both are irrelevant if your follow up film is great. Difficult to get that chance if it's both critically and commercially unsuccessful though.
Just accept that you're nothing special. Everything will be fine after that. You'll learn to live with it.
>>70349425
>josh trank
>an auteur
gtfo
It is said, "some people are thrust to greatness while others have greatness thrust inside them."
it all works out, OP
>>70347913
Spike Lee doesn't belong in that image.
>>70351141
Why? He's an asshole but he's an auteur.
>>70351386
Nah
>>70352084
Explain your reasoning.
