>People unironically shit on Tarantino
He's single handedly keeping film alive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGg2N32Z-co
>>63157117
so basically "you can't torrent the extra 10 mins so go and pay for the movie"
Right, fine. You really want to have a proper chat about that foot psychopath.
Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Inglorious Bastards are all great.
Rest are shit with Django being the worst. Its like hes become a fanboy of his own films and is making poorly made knockoffs of his own, and mentions obscure details of film as keeping it going like ultra panavision. Its not been used in almost 50 years and he comes the footman proclaiming its brilliant.
In short, hes shit and youre reddit.
>Tarantinon unironically shits himself
What's going on here?
>>63157117
Excited about the 70mm showng.
Hopefully I can get a ticket.
>>63157199
Dubs of truth
>>63157205
UNO
>>63157117
>People unironically shit on Tarantino
Way to miss the fucking point OP, /tv/ likes Tarantino and even fans (like me) join in the "mocking" the truth is is that we just fuck around with Quentin because he does silly things but make no mistake, EVERYONE here loves Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, please try to prove me wrong.
>>63157239
People only "love" JB here because it's his least mainstream movie.
>>63157199
Jackie Brown > Reservoir Dogs > Pulp Fiction > Inglorious Basterds > Django > Kill Bill > Death Proof
I think the Hateful Eight might be decent and a lot better than some of Tarantino's more recent films.
>>63157239
I have seen all of his films except for jackie brown. does that make me racist?
>>63157311
it makes you a kek
>>63157266
holy shit this, it fucking sucks. Reaction faces imminent.
>>63157311
Jackie Brown is pretty good.
You should watch it
>video and digital is embraced by filmmakers who matter like Kiarostami, Greenaway, Malick, Godard, Ceylan, Andersson etc. because they know that film technology will always advance
>the only people who moan about digital and rabidly defend film are hacks like Tarantino, Nolan, Abrams and PTA
>>63157117
I don't get it. If you shoot in 65mm and project it in 70mm, wouldn't you stretch and degrade the image? You're adding an extra 5mm to the film, so how would that not degrade the quality?
>>63157393
Fucking retard. A 5mm gap is always given in the film stock to account for Lorentzian contraction because light is passing through the film. Go learn some physics, moron.
>Claims to be shooting in a certain format.
>We should take him more seriously as a director because he shoots in that format.
No. That is not the way it works. Just because your film is shot in a certain format doesn't automatically make it ten times better than another format.
>>63157481
I know nothing about film, that's why I asked. Dick.
>>63157378
Fucking this.
It's not the format you shoot in that matters. It's the content in that format that matters.
>>63157117
>watch video
>This actually sounds kind of neat. Maybe I'd like to go see this special version
>100 theaters in the US
>live in Ohio, all the theaters are guaranteed to only be in California, Texas, Nevada, New York, etc.
Well, fuck you, Tarantino. Guess I won't be seeing this movie after all. You had me interested until you told me it would be literally impossible for me to experience it.
>>63157199
>poorly made knockoffs of his own
I have a theory about why Tarantino had such a huge drop-off in quality. Basically, Jackie Brown wasn't received as well as his first two movies, and that messed with his head and led him to make worse movies.
It kind of makes sense. Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are both good, and we both highly acclaimed. People loved them and hailed him as one of the best directors of his generation. However, a lot of the praise was also kind of shallow, because the movies were intentionally built on cliches. So, he became known for directing quirky movies with lots of references and over the top action. Then, he made Jackie Brown, which isn't much like that at all; it's an adaptation that tells a simple story about coping with aging. It's quieter and more mature. People didn't like it as much. It made less money and got less critical attention. Tarantino probably took that hard and decided people just wanted movies full of references, cliches, and violence. And everything he's made since then has basically been a pastiche is his first two movies, because it's what people want.
samuel l jackson acted better in this youtube video than he has in 10+ years.
>>63157622
youre probably right. I rate Jackie Brown
>>63157622
that doesn't really explain why he made Death Proof, which is his 2nd more mature since JB and similarly bombed.
>>63158127
>muh grind house
that's why
>I'm literally
>waves hands
>saving
>smacks lips imitating niggas
>saving
>gets cUcked at a young age
>saving film making
It's nice that a 70mm is being made again but I don't think this will be very good. Probably better than Django but the QT sort of film isn't for me.
There's no way I'll be at a cinema that can even show it anyway
>>63158621
>cinema
Well it's only happening in the US, so you're well out of luck there.
Imagine Quentin played Lester Nygaard in Fargo S1?
>>63157378
Finally someone who brings up a goddamn point.
If you are a guy who makes shitty flicks like tarantula, it's only a waste of money and material to film on film anyway.
>>63160240
wrong. technology is evil and is ruining our secret club of film
>>63157378
Does Nolan even shoot film? his movies don't look like it.
PTA for sure shoots weird film like 70mm but tends not to brag about it. I don't think he cares, he just likes it.
>>63160286
You do know that film technology has advanced over the years too, right? Are you faggots really this retarded to think they're using the same film reels from 50 years ago that were sitting in storage in some warehouse? Filmstock technology has made incredible advances over the years. So have film formats. An IMAX-format film frame has about 18,000 lines (18K) of horizontal resolution, while 8K digital cinema cameras are only just being released.
>>63160448
That's the thing, these directors who choose to shoot on film do so because they like it, or because they are so used to working with the nuances of film. The only people who really get this bent over film vs digital are the /v/eddit retards who will find any way to turn any subject into a "console war", as if they are in any position to have a valid opinion on the matter.
>>63161028
>The only people who really get this bent over film vs digital are the /v/eddit retards who will find any way to turn any subject into a "console war", as if they are in any position to have a valid opinion on the matter.
Not true. A lot of these Hollywood heavy hitters have very strong feelings about this whether they're for digital or against it. Check out the documentary Side By Side.
>>63157117
>People unironically shit on Tarantino
>Tarantino unironically shits himself
>>63157311
no, it makes you anigger
