Was Quentin Tarentino right?

In this case, yes. I really wanted to like it, but it's a disaster.

No. That's like saying aged bands can't release quality albums. Some of Judas Priest's best material was released in the second half of their career.

"Twixt" (aka "B'Twixt Now and Sunrise"), "Tetro," "Youth Without Youth" and "The Rainmaker" are all worthwhile Coppola films in their unique ways. Are they great like "Apocalypse Now" and "The Godfather"? No, but they rank pretty well with "The Outsiders," "Peggy Sue Got Married," "Gardens of Stone," "Tucker: The Man and His Dream" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

It really just depends on the director.

FFC is an egotistical madman who has too much fun sniffing his own farts to listen to anyone's criticism. That's why he sold off his entire estate to make a movie everyone said wouldn't work, and didn't work.

John Carpenter became disillusioned with the film industry after the 80's, began thinking with his wallet in the 90's, and has since grown bitter and resentful of all the criticism that came his way his entire career. He's been his own biggest critic for several decades now. This might be the case with Brian De Palma too.

George Lucas never liked directing and has admitted to being bad at it. He's since nestled into a career producing role, a position he's much better and more confident at doing.

George A Romero stopped caring about his legacy and started doing whatever he wanted, regardless of whether it would be good or not.

Meanwhile, directors like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, and Clint Eastwood are all old legacy directors who are doing just fine, and some of them have released some of their best works past the age of 70. Speilberg with The Fabelmans and West Side Story, Scorsese with The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon, Ridley Scott with The Martian, Eastwood with Gran Torino, American Sniper, Sully, etc. They've had ups and downs but they're still going strong.

Well, Woody Allen and Clint Eastwood have managed to make quality, albeit low budget films well into their twilight years. Kurosawa had Ran. Bergman had Fanny and Alexander. Kubrick had Eyes Wide Shut, which is overlong yet mesmerizing.
So while most directors fade, some are still quite capable.
Coppola faded decades ago….

Plenty of older directors have made good movies. Tarantino is just being goofy.

I think he's 'somewhat' right... I do believe an artists's creative peak is real.

But its not like an athlete that once 'father time' knocks on their door its completely over.

Scorsese is over 80 and still making amazing films.

Kubrick's very last film when he was 70 is my favorite out of his entire filmography, Eyes Wide Shut.

Fincher is in his early 60s (+3 decade career) and I still look forward to whatever he's making, his recent films I haven't enjoyed as much not because of his directing (which is as good as it was in the mid 90s if not better), but because of the content he has chosen.

Imo those three are examples of filmmakers making movies as good as the ones they made decades ago during their 'primes'.

I cannot say the same about Clint Eastwood... nor Ridley Scott... Spielberg hasn't made a film I have enjoyed in almost twenty years... don't even get me going about Zemeckis :(

I don't know if he's saying older directors can't make anything good, but more that they don't recognize what's good or not in the same way they did in their primes. I think it scares him that he might make what he thinks is a great movie only to find out everyone thinks it sucks. This seems like a perfect example since Coppola was so passionate about making it and invested so much of his own money.

The peak performance in almost all areas, sport, science, chess, poker, and art, is at a young age. Einstein, Newton, and Darwin discovered their biggest achievements before 30.