Is he right?
Yes but he's still a hack. A hack who is right in this case.
He's an old man that is out of touch.
The world must move on from antique methods and embrace the new, more efficient.
Literally what is lost when you go from shitty analog to based digital? Is he saying films require an inherent shittiness in the way they're projected? I honestly don't understand this meme at all.
>>70665706
>embrace lower quality visuals
Cuck
No, it's regrettable but "death of the cinema" it is not.
its just stating the obvious. when you stop doing something, it stops happening
>>70665725
Have you compared laser disc to dvd before?
Laser disc looks smoother and more organic
Digital is literally shit
>>70665706
You've always been cheap labor
As far as I'm concerned, automobiles are the death of travel. The fact that most people don't travel by horse and carriage means that the world is lost. Automobiles are just chairs you travel on.
- Quentin Tarantino
>>70665765
Laser disc is digital, you goddamn moron
>>70665765
If grainy is what you mean by organic, sure.
>>70665765
people who watch a lot of films just really like what they're used to.
Not because it's better, but because they're used to it.
Not because it's smoother, but because they're used to it.
Not because the alternative has a "soap opera" look, but because they're used to it.
Deal with it scrub, your preference isn't better.
>>70665677
he's a talentless hack.
>>70665796
kek
You guys are morons. Cinema is being projected digitally because it's cheaper, not because it's better
holy shit
>>70665772
w-what?
>>70665677
Wait so you telling me all those movies that I've paid to see in the cinema recentlt have all been from a computer?
Like someone just put windows media to full screen and paid people to watch it?
That fucking sucks
>>70666070
Sometimes they use a PS4
>>70666070
pretty much, in 4k probably though
>>70665677
there's literally no difference, until in music where analog is still by far most pure way to record
>>70666089
FUCKING KEK WOW
>shoots his films on film
>but watches films on VHS
Tarantino is an idiot
>>70666126
I saw a picture once of a movie theatre showing the XMB menu. Can't find it now though.
So take it with grain of salt.>>70666089
>>70666152
yeah thats when I realized Tarantino will sacrifice any kind of quality or technological improvement for nostalgia
I'm glad tarantino is still fighting for the magic of cinema, he's like the punk rock of kino.
Unlike the cucks and pirates of /tv/
>>70665796
Underated.
>>70665677
Who cares? He is a meme.
>>70665677
> filming in digital
> filiming using actual film
who gives a fuck? Literally what is the difference?
And yes, before the explanation I can tell the slight difference between the two mediums, but it really does not matter at all.
Besides if you have worked in film before, using actual film is like 3x as much work as just pointing a digital camera. It's like riding an elevator vs. using the stairs.
>>70666070
>>70666089
wait what? is this an americuck thing?
>>70666762
Probably just a poor/cheap/small theatre thing.
>>70665677
He does have a point. Also none of his movies are bad.
>>70666762
Stop false flagging
>>70665677
it's called evolution.
>>70665677
>realize what they lost
What did we lose exactly?
>>70665805
The audio is digital. The video is analog.
Autistic people can't handle change.
My little brother freaked the fuck out when the family VCR was put away and a DVD player took its place. The fact we got his favourite films on dvd that day, and promised to replace all his VHS tapes with DVD's did nothing to stop his screaming that day.
During the night while we were asleep he smashed the DVD player and the family awoke to him sitting next to is crying begging not to be punished.
Tarantino reminds me of my brother.
>>70665677
has anyone told him it's 2016
Quentin still records things on VHS for goodness sake. His opinion about this shit is irrelevant because 99% of people aren't film purists.
>>70665677
Digital is fantastic though, it's helped indie projects flourish. Honestly, he's a hollywood elitist who is buttmad that plebs are coming up with easy blockbusters because doing everything digital is half of the effort and expense of doing it through film.
>>70668827
This is Tarantino. Putting digital/cgi film grain onto his creations and generally making it look and sound worse to be more 'authentic' is a good idea to him.
>this generation
What did he mean by this? Does he not realize there are multiple generations alive at this time?
>>70665677
faggot got but blasted by "Onions"
>>70665677
Tarantino = blacksmith
digital = smelting factory
prove this wrong
>>70668912
I didn't know digital made movies
YOUR WRONG.
>>70665677
There's a new "Death of Cinema" every other year. Fuck Tarantino. He's a hack
>>70665765
>organic
there we go
i bet you think that vinyl sounds "warmer" than lossless audio when in fact it's objectivelly worse
some people are just retarded
like people who listen to everything on vinyl and buy $2000 audio cables
This is related to this thread.
>>70669029
was JC there to troll?
>>70669012
>he doesn't have an audio system that can use those extra 4khz in vinyl
plebAlthough no one does, which is why it's retarded that vinyl purists essentially listen to them in budget 2 channel speakers they got from their local shops
>>70669068
Why do you say that?
>>70666070
Yep, films are usually send to a theater on a HDD.
>>70665706
The digital projectors are not more efficient. They break down in 20 years while a cinematic projector can go way past 75 years.
>>70670219
They probably dont require much training to use though.
>Film cost a fortune.
>Film reels are big and bulky
>Flammable
>>70665920
It's cheaper in the short run but the new projectors break down faster
Has he thought that people who send movies to Cannes might not have the money to shoot on film. Also shooting on film shouldn´t be forced these days because it`s a technique that can be used liked color.
>>70666188
quality is in film.
>>70669094
>those extra 4 khz that humans can't hear ond only distort the audible frequencies
>>70670246
I used to work at a theater around 2006 when they were just talking about d projectors.
It really didn't take much. Somebody showed me in 15 minutes.
>>70670340
POP QUIZ MR 15 MIN HOTSHOT:
How do you flux the capacitor in the rear projector when it's at maximum capacity and using nylon film from a HD puroplasm?
>>70665677
he could be right if he actually said what was lost in digital/the benefits of it
but he didn't, his 20 year old movie was the only one to use his old nearly hipster format.
are there things to gain? yeah, there fucking are
but you know what? a single film movie is shipped in 2+ 30 pound specially made boxes, and then a projectionists has to splice the 4+ reels together, and thread it into the projector
or you can just pop a shitty disk in, and 99% of the audience wont care
also, "god, there was so much music played at this music festival, i cant believe i was the only multi millionaire who brought music on a record"
>>70670256
>It's cheaper in the short run but the new projectors break down faster
and the old projectors bulbs can literally explode because of their heat
>>70670340
you were shown how to thread a machine in 15 minutes, and probably how to splice film in the event it broke/fucked up
not how to actually run it. you threaded it, then pushed the green button on the side, and another button if the projector projected onto the curtains
>>70666070
its crazy that people don't know this
Kodak shill
>>70665796
As far as I'm concerned, lightbulbs are the death of illumination. The fact that most people don't light their homes with candles means that the world is lost. Lightbulbs are just the sun in a jar.
- Quentin Tarantino
digital is good enough for flicks.
if they stop making movies, films and kino then digital 3D IMAX is the right choice. we're already mostly there.
Wow, he really does still tape shit off the TV to VHS. That pretty much completely destroys his argument for film preservation and exposes him to be a retard incapable of change and evolution. Or he's just submerged in nostalgia.
I remember watching an interview with him where they asked him if he'd ever shoot on digital and he said he'd be afraid to lose everything he shot. And that hard drives eventually lock up and then you lose your masters (as if you just keep them all on one HDD) whereas film is forever. In another interview, I think with Charlie Rose, he said he refuses to write on a laptop because he doesn't want it to crash and delete all his progress. So he just writes longhand.
Sounds to me like he's just ignorant to and afraid of technology in general and has some kind of pride thing about it so he just lashes out.
>>70670389
LOL
The film was always loaded by a supervisor. You just had to rewind it, play it forward, repeat.
I didn't work long enough to get there. I would just hang out while the homie talked through it but he never let me actually hit play.
i do have experience with 16 and super 8 though but i probably failed the quiz :/
but also, i don't think you know what you asked
>>70670432
Actually I was just shown how the projectors are already loaded.
The argument wasn't that i knew how to operate a 35mm projector.
i was just saying that it's not a big deal to train somebody to do it. Sure hitting play on a button for a digital projector is easier because you don't have to stand there and see if the movie plays okay for the first few minutes of the film.
The way the theaters had it set up back then was that the operators had a smaller role to fill.
All the splices and segments were done by another company and installed on theater projections by supervisors.
the hateful eight wasn't very good. Did they actually spin that turd through a 35mm player at the le cinemas?
>>70666408
this.
although using film requires being more efficient on set, and be better prepared. digital makes people lazy.
digital makes postproduction infinitely easier.
No, but I hope people will still continue to make and project film. Anyone who's had even a little experience with both mediums can attest to ridiculous quality you can get on film. Working with just a shitty SLR camera I could take pictures of retarded resolution. Digital is great though for it's exceptional convenience, and yes, sometimes convenience is more desirable than quality.
>>70665677
He is always right.
This is what actually most americans say to immigrants. when the problem is not the immigrants at all.
>>70665796
>cagers in denial
Enjoy being stuck in traffic every morning for 2 hours because literally everyone in the whole city is driving the same highway at the same time.
t. /n/
>>70670884
Somebody's later films are always going to be in the shadow of the earlier ones. But compared to a lot of shit out there right now, this movie got a lot of frowns. probably because they hung a girl, without balls or legs
>>70665677
He's a huge faggot that doesn't know what's taking about.
>>70671093
I'd be totally okay with Hateful 8 if 80% of it wasn't inside a fucking Cabin. The thing felt way too cramped. Basterds and even Django atleast explored locations and kept things moving but no, with hateful eight they lock you inside a cabin for 2 and a half hours and scream nigger over and over and over
>>70671163
did you forget about reservoir dogs or what
>>70670970
Kino God approves.
>>70671202
it wasn't the same and you know it
>>70671202
dogs still had bigger and more varied sets.
>>70670987
He really is.
>>70670612
It's good enough for cape flix
>>70665677
But I am sure he doesn't complain from all the money he receives from his ''''films''' being shown at digital theaters, tho ... amirite?
>>70671163
I can see that point about it being cramped with a lot of slurs and murders.
At the same time, the guy was trying something new for himself. But yeah, if it was a shorter length movie, it would sit better. Cut the intermission too
Quality footage shot on, say, an Arri Alexa can look like 99.9% identical to film. It is shot 24 frames per second with the same shutter speed. The resolution potential is nearly identical to super 35mm, as well. The problem lies in the fact that everything today has to be super doctored up in post. They over-saturate everything, crush the blacks, put some gay filter on it, then over-sharpen everything. What you are left with is some fake, plastic-looking piece of shit. If you leave quality digital footage alone, it looks really good.
Since the '90s, even shit shot on film has gone through a DI to be edited digitally and then put back on film for projection, back when most theaters were still film projection.
Cuckatino is a cuck.
>>70671508
This is why capturing everything in camera and using practical gels as opposed to color grading in post is 100% better.
Film is nice and looks really nice.
I wish more movies would be shot on film.
But digital movies can be fine.
Honestly both have pros and cons, and how good your movie is depends entirely on how you utilise your medium, not what it is.
I do wish more directors would use film.
But
Theres no need to project digital movies with a 35mm projector. That's stupid.
>>70668834
Tarantino is a real life greg turkington
>>70671577
I agree. Always film as close to as you want it to look in camera. If you don't know how you want it to look, then you have no business in filmmaking.
>>70665677
well, if the story is shit, and director is a hack, then doesn't matter if the movie was shot on digital, or film.
tarantino is the last director that constantly bitches about film being superior. his last two films prove that that's the last thing he should be worried.
>>70671595
The con about film that it is hard to use.
The pro about film is that it is hard to use so you are going to be on top of your shit
>>70671595
>Theres no need to project digital movies with a 35mm projector. That's stupid.
what?
>>70668824
you can say it here anon
your "little brother" was you
and you still miss those tapes
>>70671728
nay no my man.
Tarantino has created more original movies than shit that hits theaters in one year.
am i exaggerating? you betcha. Am i wrong? me thinks not
>>70670680
it's called being autistic.
but in his defense, this OCD might be part of creative process. let him have his way, but he could just stop bitching about the natural evolution of the medium.
>>70671823
not saying he's a bad director, i love most of his work. i really enjoy how self aware he can be with typical cliche plot points, and turn them in favor of his stories, not for the sake of being contrarian, but to make the story work even better.
it's simply sad that he turned to this stereotypical grandpa that keeps spewing "in my times, everything was better". just let it go, old man. let the kids have their fun.
>>70666070
There is a reason you haven't seen any cue marks or visible scratches in films shown in cinemas recently. Over the past five years, almost everything has been digitalized. I watched Metropolis a few months ago in cinema, and that too was shown digitally.
I suppose the incentive to go to the cinema decreases when one knows they essentially use the same equipment as one does at home. I am aware some will argue it's simply a matter of modernisation, but it's more than that to a lot of people.
>>70668824
film =/= shitty magnetic tape
>>70672051
digital Mann >>>>> film Mann
>>70672051
You could make digital look EXACTLY like Thief if you wanted. Thing is, no directors or studios have the balls. The knuckle-dragging audience demands shit tier visuals because they are used to cable TV.
>>70672051
the thing is, digital is still evolving. very recently it reached quality present in movies shot on film. give it 5 more years, and no one will feel the difference.
it's a good thing, people.
>>70672131
Unfortunately, Mann had no clue when it came to digital, and also experimented with digital back when it was only 2k, small-format digital.
>>70672051
>It's sterile, it's soulless, it's dull
It doesn't have to be, the problem isn't with the technology, Tarantino is just being an old man.
Mediums evolve, you don't see anyone complaining that books aren't hand copied on vellum anymore.
>>70671983
stop trying to sound smart
it makes one sound like a faggot
>>70672197
>you don't see anyone complaining that books aren't hand copied on vellum anymore.
Or music not being recorded on tape.
>>70672197
but if you were into books which one would you actually prefer to own, its an obvious choice, without nitpicking about moot details
>>70665677
he's like the steve albini of cinema kek
>>70673305
vinyls are coming back for some reason
and listening to the static of a vinyl is comforting and adds some other feelings for some reason, like adding heavy rain to a track
>Not understanding the importance of the poor image
>Not celebrating the death of visual capitalism
>>70673399
The way he wears his strap weirds me out so much everytime.
Pic related, it's Rooney Mara wearing a guitar strap without a guitar.
>>70674922
IIRC he's got some kind of special hip-mounting system. It's like a fanny pack, basically. I don't know why he uses it, exactly, but he's done so since the 80s.
Tarantino's still just butthurt over the Revenant ordeal. He thought people would care H8ful was using 65mm and advertised it to death, but then the Revenant used a 65mm sensor on digital camera and actually had breath-taking cinematography that people wouldn't stop talking about.
He's just a child throwing a tantrumOr a fedora sperging out
>>70668834
>Quentin still records things on VHS for goodness sake
proofs?
>>70671508
somebody post that "moves then and movies now" with the jurassic park scene
