0
How in the Hell can Tarantino be called "prolific"?!? In the past ten years he's made exactly THREE movies (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown - plus the one segment of Four Rooms, so three and-a-quarter movies). Guy Ritchie's made two features in two years (Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch). If he makes just two more movies before 2008, he will be more prolific than Quentin was in his first ten years as a filmmaker.
Other Tarantino scripts have been filmed (True Romance, Natural Born Killers, From Dusk 'Till Dawn) and sadly he shows up as an "actor" in many projects (too many), but as a director he is far from "prolific". True Romance and Natural Born Killers were written before he started directing (obviously helmed by others: Tony Scott & Oliver Stone respectively), so you can't even call him much a prolific screenwriter during that ten year period.
As for which of these directors I prefer, it's probably a push, maybe leaning a bit toward Ritchie at this point. I think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are good enough but incredibly overrated. I liked Lock Stock and Snatch a lot, I'd say a bit more than Tarantino's work overall. But while they're fun and I enjoy watching them, I wouldn't call either a "great" movie. They both have potential to do some special things as filmmakers, but they've got to broaden their pallets, try their style and perspective on some different kinds of stories and genres. Otherwise it's going to get really old really fast.
I think anyway.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra