maybe he’s tired of people who haven’t seen the film expecting things from it that they don’t know of which they assumed certain things that were never true in the first place. What I mean is: a question like that is an unspoken accusation that there’s not “enough” Margot Robbie in it, as if anyone or him had claimed otherwise at some other point in time. Just because some folks assume it to be a movie about Sharon Tate, doesn’t mean it has to be…
why “naturally”? for one he hasn’t sworn never to make a movie after ten, he just said he doesn’t want to fizzle out like some other directors do at a later stage in their career, and why can’t he hold this opinion without being called arrogant? 