QUENTIN TARANTINO'S NEW FILM: "DJANGO UNCHAINED'

[Kris Canonizado]

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/quentin-tarantinos-new-western-has-a-title-django-unchained

 

[AnthonyFlores]

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/quentin-tarantinos-new-western-has-a-title-django-unchained

Thanks for this. I know Quentin's really into film, but would be cool if someone could get him to shoot this on Epic Perhaps his first 3D film? I'm sure the studios would not fight him on that ....

 

[Steve Das]

...I'm sure the studios would not fight him on that ....

Studios would have no say..after all he doesn't do studio films.
The films are all independently financed. This is one reason they
tend to avoid scenes shot in big locations where you'd need extras/money/time to film.
Think after the flop(money wise) of Grindhouse they had to go to alot of
outside money on Inglorious Bastards. But still no Studio money went into it.

Watch 'em again. There's a movie that takes place before and after a bank robbery...
but never a scene in the bank. The boxer in Pulp Fiction..we never see him box.
Even Kill Bill is a pretty self-contained movie.

 

[L. Langer]

Thanks for this. I know Quentin's really into film, but would be cool if someone could get him to shoot this on Epic Perhaps his first 3D film? I'm sure the studios would not fight him on that ....

I think if he ever goes 3D, it would probably be something exceptionally trippy and highly kinetic like a follow-up to Kill Bill where you could put 3D to good use and write the script accordingly. I just can't see a western, even if it came from the mind of Quentin, being a good use for 3D unless there were a lot of crazy things going on. But who am I kidding, it is Quentin Tarentino. Heh heh.

 

[Tim Hole]

Yeah...not gonna happen.

He's got about four years of making films left before he retires anyway so he's a lost cause (That's the ballpark time when print distribution is supposedly stopping).

Somehow I think he will be forced to wake up (eventually) and start distributing digitally but I think he will be one of the last of the bigger US directors to stop shooting film.

From an interview with QT:

Can you imagine yourself making a film like 'Sin City'?

I would have thought not. I'm not a fan of digital. And I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it's great. That's where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.

I thought it might have intrigued you to make those films.

To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on themselves, and it shows. If you don't care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself, I don't care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating a whole new cinematic landscape, I can't be churlish about that. I've got to give it up. It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say, what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the fuck is that about? I found it more interesting in my brain than I did watching it. I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me. Using this Mount Everest analogy again, the mountain got smaller and the achievement was a little less.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49432

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Studios would have no say..after all he doesn't do studio films.
The films are all independently financed. This is one reason they
tend to avoid scenes shot in big locations where you'd need extras/money/time to film.
Think after the flop(money wise) of Grindhouse they had to go to alot of
outside money on Inglorious Bastards. But still no Studio money went into it.

Watch 'em again. There's a movie that takes place before and after a bank robbery...
but never a scene in the bank. The boxer in Pulp Fiction..we never see him box.
Even Kill Bill is a pretty self-contained movie.

Thanks Steve, yes I had actually heard this before ... in this case I used term "studio" loosely/incorrectly to refer to the financing. But you're right, independent financing very different than one the major studios putting up the money and influencing the decision process ....

... also I see what you mean about the various shots! You're right, Pulp Fiction was almost like a play with simple sets/scenes.

 

[Ruairi Robinson]

Uhhh... 300 was shot on film.

 

[Tim Hole]

Uhhh... 300 was shot on film.

hehe good point. That fact must have passed him by.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Uhhh... 300 was shot on film.

Well, the bottom half.

 

[Christian Munoz D]

Well, the bottom half.

As far I now only very few shoots were done with a HS video camera...probably Phantom.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

As far I now only very few shoots were done with a HS video camera...probably Phantom.

I meant it as a greenscreen joke:

 

[Mark Collins]

I was under the impression that for the HS stuff on 300 they used two film cameras side by side, one running at a much higher frame rate than the other, which ran at regular 24fps