Why is Tarantino so fucking stupid?

>The question came at the end of a hour-long question-and-answer session in which Tarantino touched on numerous topics: the importance of editing, the crucial role that music can play, the impact of spaghetti westerns and the woeful effects of the digital age on cinema. At one point, Tarantino said that he sees the digital revolution as the “death of cinema” and that he hopes a new generation of moviegoers will insist on 35 millimeter. “It’s too late for this generation,” he said.

>When pressed on the difference between digital and 35-millimeter films, Tarantino said that he saw no reason to leave the house to see a digital film, because you can see that on TV. “I don’t need to go see television at a theater,” he said. “Thirty-five millimeter is a reason to leave the house.”

I don't get it why is he so damn autistic about digital, it's inevitable and there's nothing he can do about it, it will eventually catch up with film. Is he truly set in his ways?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QHb8tBh_VnU
youtu.be/fk0a-eljl2s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I've used both industry-standard digital and 35mm and let me tell you, 35mm is dead for a fucking reason. The only reason to use it at all is if you're a nostalgia snob who could afford using a dead format like Tarantino is.

It does have higher resolution though

Everything is projected at 2K in theatres anyway

Nah. I haven't shot 35mm since my film school days, but shooting stuff on 16mm is still worth all of the costs.

The point being made here isn't about shooting film, but projecting it in theaters. I go to the New Beverly pretty often and it's a real pleasure to sit in that uncomfortable one-screen room to see movies shot on film actually projected in that format (except for Public Enemies, I saw that like a year ago there and it still looked like shit). Sure part of it is nostalgia, but there's real merit there that can't be so easily discarded out of hand.

Mmmmmhh
Yeah cuz i'd be smelling feet up and down the street
Nah ain't gonna do it all of a sudaaah

I'll take the opinion of a successful director over the one of some no name guy, sorry

Nigga, that hairline.

>Why does a filmmaker have opinions about filmmaking?

>why does a filmmaker have backward views on the future filmmaking
He is being overly portentous, the tell tale sign of old age, digital is not the death of cinema and his romanticising of Film may be charming to some but he's the only guy that can afford that luxury - it's not like it's threatening him or anyone who gives a damn about the distinction for aesthetic reasons.

May we not forget
youtu.be/QHb8tBh_VnU

of course he doesn't have to leave his house to see a digital film, not everyone has a fucking movie theatre at home.

prime Sup Forums

why is he so based bros?

Who gives a fuck he's a hack who got lucky with every single movie he ever made and has no clue what he ever did right.
It's why his latest films are pure, unadulterated shit.

As much as I hate that disgusting cuck, he's right.

Digital a shit

Using your own old ideas isn't very impressive desu

Calling a Katana merely a knife is dishonorable and worthy of Sudoku, which Tarantino should commit.

This argument has been ranging in cinema and in photography since the advent of digital.. they both have their merits and artists make reasonable choices to use them.Editing is very different on both mediums and is a big deal for some.Furthermore; if Tarantino wants his work displayed in a certain way its his prerogative.

also to the second guy talking about being able to "afford" film.. you have no fucking idea what you are talking about in regards to cost. Renting a film grade digital movie camera and batteries and storage and computing equipment and other peripherals for the cameras costs about the same if not more than renting a film camera and buying film. The cost difference either way is negligible in a production. In fact low budget film makers still shoot on 16mm because for the quality it produces it is often the most cost effective option. They can then choose to physically edit the film or scan it and edit it digitally. I prefer film and so do many many successful working film makers.. You choose the best medium for the art.. it is a tool not an idea.

>I Prefer film

But it's OUTDATED and let's face it digital has higher resolution and easier workflow and you only like it because of >muh authentic film grain

You and your collegiate are a bunch of dishonest hipsters who will be steamrolled by the force of the future.

He's right though

Which one did he suck the feet of while farting?

Unless you're talking about IMAX, film is completely pwned on resolution.

>"It's a black male thing!"

What did he mean by this?

name one single masterpiece that has been shot on digital

you can't
you can't make good art with shitty tools

What about when it comes to the opinion of one successful director, over the opinions of almost every other successful person in the business?

But film and film cameras are still available. It's still an option. Digital video can look really beautiful, I don't necessarily think film is "better," but it has a distinctive look and color profile that just can't be replicated by anything but real film stock. And it keeps that look even when it's transferred to digital video for editing and screening.

Film isn't a museum relic yet, it's still a viable option. Until it's truly dead, I don't see any reason NOT to use it when it's appropriate and allowable within the budget, or any reason why it's "stupid" for a director to have a strong preference about the way his movie looks.

>you know what they're going to call you? the fastest gun in the south.

How does Quantum Tarantulakino know how to stick a cool little moment like this at the end of his movie?

has tarantino ever done a nude scene?

Your whole argument is rooted in laziness and creative apathy. You can't even understand the idea that someone would prefer to make a movie "the hard way" just because he enjoys the process and the ritual.

I'm not even anti-HD, I've seen some beautiful movies made on digital video, I just think you're shit

Yes, watch Django unchained. You can see juicy BBC there.

>This argument has been ranging in cinema and in photography since the advent of digital
It was raging at first.
Then digital continued to get better, month by month, for decades.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process, but let's not kid ourselves, even my consumer-level stills camera can shoot better quality footage, in darker, colder, hotter conditions, and get into more tight spaces, and have the footage for immediate review, for far less upfront cost with less running costs, than anyone had before digital.

film is kino. digital is shit.

any questions?

...

ytpkino at its finest

its a black male thing

heh, nothing personnel kid

Let me guess, you've never made a film before. You've probably had "good ideas", "anyone can do it" right? But you've never gotten off your ass to actually try? You are a pathetic excuse for human excrement. You are nothing. Your opinion is worthless, and you will never be worth a shit to real, creative people.

He knows he's full of bullshit, but he has to keep up the facade to con nerds into seeing his crappy movies.

more Sup Forums-core vids pls

>The importance of editing and the crucial role of music

Is that why his films are shit in both respects?

>implying there's a reason to try doing anything

Life ends regardless, nothing matters. You're either born lucky and your entire life is easy mode, like all good looking people, or you aren't. Either way your accomplishments don't matter.

he's right

>Tarantino said that he saw no reason to leave the house to see a digital film, because you can see that on TV. “I don’t need to go see television at a theater,” he said. “Thirty-five millimeter is a reason to leave the house.”

And he is absolutely right about this for one simple reason: color.

Digital may be sharper than film. It may equal or surpass it in resolution. But the one place it still falls short is in color. Even the best digital camera in the world still can't match the best examples of film for richness of color.

I would post an example image but it's literally impossible for me to do so. You'll just have to get out there and attend some 35mm revival screenings and see for yourself. It's literally something you can't get home and will pay to go see.

>Blonde one wasn't the leader, Bill was

>Not a kung-fu master, she's an assassin and a sword master

>Demolition expert? Exactly when they mention that?

>Sex? Exactly when they mention that?

>Knife? That's a katana nigger

Yeah, so based

He's pretty smart. It's the people that worship him and go see his movies, who are stupid.

>linear response curve vs logarithmic response
>bayer pattern sensor vs multiple emulsion layers

In terms of color and highlights/blacks, there is a very noticeable difference between the two.

Then kill yourself you pussy.

Tarankino grew up with flicks shot on 35 mill so he's clinging to this format like a baby to his mother's tit.

Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever. Nobody cares about 70 mill despite him trying to make it a big deal of it with Hateful Eight.

>Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever.
That's like saying nobody can see the difference between 240p and 4k. But way to go ousting yourself as an underage retard.

You dont get orange and teal on film

that comes from digital color correction of a digital film

>Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever.

It's true though, and therefore digital is the way to go, because it is the easiest to use for a filmmaker. You can chage shit however you like in seconds with a push of a button.

Let me guess, you've never operated a camera once in your life?

why are dumb nerds using the word based so much lately?

Can't the "feel/aesthetics" of real film be replicated pretty well by digital with effects? Why bother using film?

braaaaaaaaaaap

Nope. Especially because most films are riddled with CGI and cheap-ass digital alterations.

If you actually cared to pick up a camera and try to film and edit for yourself you would realize this.

>Can't the "feel/aesthetics" of real film be replicated pretty well by digital with effects?

to a degree but largely depends on the scene, and things like good green are a total bitch to work out of digital even in ideal situations

fuck off, this is a board about watching stuff not making it

Yeah but Uma's character in Pulp would totally call a Katana a knife, she barely gave a fuck and had to have everything explained to her.

Its the 80s and almost no rich females would've known the word Katana, I've seen hundreds of women call Swords Knives.

I wasn't talking about any CGI beyond trying to emulate film, retard.

>this is a board about watching stuff not making it
This is why your opinion about movies will never matter

Reading comprehension, retard

>I've seen hundreds of women call Swords Knives

it's not true - there is a huge difference. see a doctor

>it's a real pleasure to sit in that uncomfortable one-screen room to see movies shot on film actually projected in that format (except for Public Enemies, I saw that like a year ago there and it still looked like shit)
Public Enemies was shot on hd.

New Beverly Cinema may be QT's finest contribution

This. I hate public theatres.
You can't make pee breaks without missing some of the movie
You have to share the theatre with other people (sometimes loud people)
I need to leave the house just to watch it and it's overpriced.
I rather just rent it at home, i can wait.

>I don't get it why is he so damn autistic about digital, it's inevitable and there's nothing he can do about it, it will eventually catch up with film. Is he truly set in his ways?

He just has an appreciation for the way film looks on screen that most of us don't share.

>a nostalgia snob who could afford using a dead format like Tarantino is.
This is all that really needs to be said. Tarantino has always been a snob and sentimentalist about film.

>He is being overly portentous, the tell tale sign of old age
Not untrue but he was pretentious (what you really meant) when he was young too. He always worshiped the classics and emulated them and made endless tributes to them.

>name one single masterpiece that has been shot on digital
Sin City was a masterpiece.

There, I said it.

>lately

you must have been living under a rock until recently

his digital movies are sterile and flat compared to the juicy and vibrant film ones

Because of grain in film, they look more cinematic.

It's like watching a movie that's been shot at 60fps, it doesn't feel like a movie, same with grain.

The boat on the left looks red, while the right looks orange.

lol quebec tarantula has always been a hack and a moron. listen to the makers of true kino, like cronenberg, about filming digitally.

New Beverly is ok. Tarantino is dropping ball lately there and charging too much to screen there. I see some LA fags here, but how many here actually are filmmakers? I am. I'm moderately successful and work with many of the people you post about. The internet is shit. Make films and stop criticizing people who do.

>makers of true kino, like cronenberg
Horror movies aren't kino.

Film artistically is about exposing reality.

What's going on here?

Fury Road.

It's 4K at every theater (all Regal) that I go to.

>you can't make good art with shitty tools
fuck off

chose right one and i thought it was digital(looked better) but it turned out it was film

Post films so we can criticize them you show boating faggot

Well, 35mm has A E S T H E T I C S
Top-tier digital is technically superior in most cases, but it's too pristine and clean, to get the analog feel you need to apply film looks in post, which takes time and once you can dial the right amount of grain texture, curves and certain color pallettes (like older Fuji stock, which has very distinct look) - it takes out the magic of just getting the footage blindly from the Lab with all the MUH CELLULOID effects already baked-in.

I get why PTA thinks of Film as an Elitist Patrician choice and that Digital is for filthy plebs. He's entitled to his WROOONG opinion.

tl;dr:
DIGITAL = YEAH, MR. WHITE, SCIENCE!
ANALOG = MAGIC, MOTHERFUCKER.

get better at making films and we won't criticize them faggot
good luck being anything but shit though considering you dismiss all criticism

35mm with the exception of very fine-grained technical stock rarely resolves above 4K. Need to go higher? Shoot on 70mm.

HOWEVER, to get rid of certain artifacts during scanning (like aliasing), especially if the footage has heavy grain, people often choose to scan 35 mil. at 6K and then downsample to 4K. Looks better. Doesn't mean there's actually 6K worth of information there.

Mastering in 2K needs to fucking die, though. I mean, there are fucking UHDTVs begging for 4K content already in some houses.

That's why I support Noland shooting his new war movie exclusively on 70mm and fuckhueg 15/70 negative. Day fucking one.

I like Tarantino, he's pretty much an overgrown kid and that translates into his films making you feel like a kid when you watch fountains of blood for no reason other than it being cool

the quality(prettiness) of visuals in film has degraded since digital was introduced desu.

The main problem of PE was the slow shutter speed. Otherwise it looked meh-ok. Zodiac was shot on Thomson Viper and it looked amazing, as cinematic as early digital HD could get.

The Red Weapon sensor is 8k and handles noise better. Film is destined to fade away just as newspaper/print. It's now become death. A gimmick and a cheap parlour trick used by some to edge their brand.

He is stupid case he thinks he's smart so he makes less mentel effort in judging things

>Movie is filmed with a Red camera capable of 6K or 8K capture
>effects and mastering done at 2K


Thanks for filming 16 bit raw 8K footage and giving me a 1080p 8 bit Rec. 709 finished product you fucking assholes

Grindhouse did this pretty well.
Planet Terror was shot digitally and Death Proof was shot on film, and no one can tell the difference unless they look it up.

youtu.be/fk0a-eljl2s

It's one of those things you don't really notice until you're told about it, then you can't forget it. Like manually breathing, thinking about blinking, your toes touching your socks etc.

...

I get the nostalgia part, but let's not pretend photochemical film is the only glorious golden kind in the 'verse. It's not. Not anymore.

What I'm really excited about is the new digital tech coming after current CMOS generation. Like Lightfield Sensors, Super High ISO sensors (Canon already demoed the low-res proto of that tech, shooting in dim moonlight, your supporting lights are fireflies), also Graphene Sensors and QuantumCinema. Future can't come soon enough.

quantum looks the shittiest

>lol why use marble and a sculptor? a 3D-printer could do the same faster!

millenials have no respect for art and its craftsmanship