Is he right?

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.

>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

Have you compared laser disc to dvd before?

Laser disc looks smoother and more organic
Digital is literally shit

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

Laser disc is digital, you goddamn moron

If grainy is what you mean by organic, sure.

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.

he's a talentless hack.

kek

You guys are morons. Cinema is being projected digitally because it's cheaper, not because it's better

holy shit

w-what?

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

Sometimes they use a PS4

pretty much, in 4k probably though

there's literally no difference, until in music where analog is still by far most pure way to record

FUCKING KEK WOW

>shoots his films on film
>but watches films on VHS
Tarantino is an idiot

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.

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 Sup Forums

Underated.

Who cares? He is a meme.

> 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.

wait what? is this an americuck thing?

Probably just a poor/cheap/small theatre thing.

He does have a point. Also none of his movies are bad.

Stop false flagging

it's called evolution.

>realize what they lost

What did we lose exactly?

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.

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.

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.

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?

faggot got but blasted by "Onions"

Tarantino = blacksmith

digital = smelting factory

prove this wrong

I didn't know digital made movies
YOUR WRONG.

There's a new "Death of Cinema" every other year. Fuck Tarantino. He's a hack

>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.

was JC there to troll?

>he doesn't have an audio system that can use those extra 4khz in vinyl
pleb

Although 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

Why do you say that?

Yep, films are usually send to a theater on a HDD.

The digital projectors are not more efficient. They break down in 20 years while a cinematic projector can go way past 75 years.

They probably dont require much training to use though.

>Film cost a fortune.
>Film reels are big and bulky
>Flammable

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.

quality is in film.

>those extra 4 khz that humans can't hear ond only distort the audible frequencies

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.

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?

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"

>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

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

its crazy that people don't know this

Kodak shill

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.

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

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?

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.

He is always right.

This is what actually most americans say to immigrants. when the problem is not the immigrants at all.

>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/

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

He's a huge faggot that doesn't know what's taking about.

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

did you forget about reservoir dogs or what

Kino God approves.

it wasn't the same and you know it

dogs still had bigger and more varied sets.

He really is.

It's good enough for cape flix

But I am sure he doesn't complain from all the money he receives from his ''''films''' being shown at digital theaters, tho ... amirite?

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.

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.

Tarantino is a real life greg turkington

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.

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.

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

>Theres no need to project digital movies with a 35mm projector. That's stupid.

what?

you can say it here user
your "little brother" was you
and you still miss those tapes

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

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.

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.