Quentin Tarantino on Leaving the Film Business Because of Digital Projection (Video)

[Dan Frenkel]

What really seems funny to me by reading all of the arguments in this thread is that, 98% of the people who says that film is dead, they go and shoot digital ( Red, Alexa or whatever ), and then on post they try really hard to make it look like Film, even the big guys on movies like Spiderman III, Hitchcock or Skyfall.. So, what is dead?, the film technology or its LOOK ??.. Personally, I think one of them is still alive, and it will be.. forever!..

Pablo, Much of the "film" industry has moved to shooting digital for sure, but if I may add to your comment, its the film technology that is about to become extinct NOT the film look!! Most of us do our best to emulate as much of the industry standard cinema look in our projects as possible but I do get what you mean!!!!

 

[Pablo Moreno]

Pablo, Much of the "film" industry has moved to shooting digital for sure, but if I may add to your comment, its the film technology that is about to become extinct NOT the film look!! Most of us do our best to emulate as much of the industry standard cinema look in our projects as possible but I do get what you mean!!!!

Right on buddy!

 

[Michael AvMen]

It's funny how his friend Robert Rodriguez made his on digital.

 

[Elsie N]

Pablo, Much of the "film" industry has moved to shooting digital for sure, but if I may add to your comment, its the film technology that is about to become extinct NOT the film look!! Most of us do our best to emulate as much of the industry standard cinema look in our projects as possible but I do get what you mean!!!!

Not trying to be argumentative here, but I wonder if the current generation will prefer a video or "gamer" look in their movies going forward. Film may truly be a walking zombie except for videophiles, in the future.

 

[Michael AvMen]

It's Amazing to me that people fear change so much, in a field that is both art and science. It's the ones that don't fear it an embrace it that will leave everyone else behind. I for one love filmmaking , love the film look, but I love the fact that the science is here today democratizing the ability to shoot a digitally emulating film look that we all love.

 

[Pablo Moreno]

Not trying to be argumentative here, but I wonder if the current generation will prefer a video or "gamer" look in their movies going forward. Film may truly be a walking zombie except for videophiles, in the future.

Believe me, nobody wouldn't call a walking zombie something that has, life-like colors and perfect color reproduction.. not in the next 100 years..

 

[Dr. Sassi]

Someone who has allowed to have his movies distributed on VHS (just checked on AMAZON), shouldn't complain about digital projection at all.

 

[Dan Frenkel]

That reminds me of how happy I was 25 years ago when I was realizing I would eventually be able to edit my films digitally!!! That meant I could review dailies faster, not have to thread a "MOVIEOLA" or what I used to work on that was called a KEM 4PLATE, 6 PLATE OR 8 PLATE!!! Spending so much time in a tiny cutting room with no windows and knee deep in film prints!! Those days were fun but im glad they are over!!!!

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

No wonder REDUSER gets a bad reputation.

1. Let's see some links to your films where you have JUST ONE SCENE that beats, say, a Christoph Waltz scene in Inglorious Basterds. Or shut up about his directing prowess.

Really Bruce? Is that how this works? Nobody can have an opinion on a director unless they have directed a scene that "somebody" thinks beats a scene from another director? Well ... I guess you better start telling a million people posting on the web to shut up ... or is this something you actually think is unique to REDUSER.net?

2. Let's see one film shot on RED with skin tones as good as those in Tarantino's films.

Gimme a break. I've seen PLENTY of bad film prints and PLENTY of amazing skin tones on films shot on RED. Are we actually going to entertain the concept of holding Tarantino's films up as references for skin tones? And exactly how would you like to define the ever subjective "as good as"?

3. The guy puts his money where his mouth is and runs an art theatre at a loss in LA showing film prints... I saw Badlands there and it looked a damn sight better than the pixelated garbage that AMC calls IMAX. Or what you see if you walk into one of the average screens at the Arclight.

Don't even get me started trying to compare digital projection and 35mm projection ... you can keep your wow, weave and flutter, scratches and dirt. Not to mention massive inconsistency in release print quality. I loath screening films from 35mm vs. digital. Same movie - two different cities - 35mm - totally different quality on print.

If anyone wants to start your own digital theatre with better projection than Tarantino's then by all means let us know.

But yeah, on average things just aren't there yet. I'm not saying they won't be in the future - and obviously Tarantino should consider backing superior digital technology instead of holding on to film.

But I mean Red just announced their 4K distribution platform based on Rec.709... which has a terrible gamut compared to film. This is the "better future" ?!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Bruce - RED did NOT "announced their 4K distribution platform based on Rec.709" - 709 is just one of the supported gamuts REDRAY supports 709, P3 ... and laser gamut wider than P3 ... so ... if you wanna talk future ... they have that. A gamut wider than anything you currently have to look at it on.

For the record - I like MOST of Tarantino's work. It's pretty damn derivative and basic IMO - but I really dig a number of his films. And no ... I can't show you JUST ONE SCENE I have directed ... that beats, say, a Christoph Waltz scene in Inglorious Basterds. Not yet anyway ... but never say never

He seems more concerned about how people will remember him and his "filmography" than just doing the work - like Soderbergh, etc. - I don't fault him for loving 35mm film - it has served his career very well and it's what he started with. He's entitles to "hate all this digital stuff" ... after all ... that public statement seems to fit perfectly into the whole over-romaticized concept of being a "film director". He's supported a good number of other filmmakers - and lent a lot of public support to the (digital) film Frozen River, which we helped produce - so I give him props and respect - but I take a lot of his public comments as a bit of him drinking his own Kool-Aid.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think we should have never embraced color in the movies. Ruined it.

And for that matter, who the hell thought adding sound to theaters and films was a good idea? Should have never taken that leap of faith either.

I'm boycotting anything not made in black and white with no sound on a hand cranking film camera.

Just need to build a time machine first. Damn it.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I think we should have never embraced color in the movies. Ruined it.

And for that matter, who the hell thought adding sound to theaters and films was a good idea? Should have never taken that leap of faith either.

I'm boycotting anything not made in black and white with no sound on a hand cranking film camera.

Just need to build a time machine first. Damn it.

No time machine needed. You can make a black & white silent movie on an EPIC Monochrome - shoot on a higher frame-rate - and use frame interpolation/drop frames in post to recreate hand-crank effect

 

[Pablo Moreno]

It's Amazing to me that people fear change so much, in a field that is both art and science. It's the ones that don't fear it an embrace it that will leave everyone else behind. I for one love filmmaking , love the film look, but I love the fact that the science is here today democratizing the ability to shoot a digitally emulating film look that we all love.

I am not afraid of change, in fact, I am a pro-science guy all the way, but think of this: Is the technology we have today better than the prior one?, can a digital DSLR shoot a vintage light bulb in a well lit room, and you actually see the incandescent light bulb's filament clearly, and all the details on that room and person faces in the same image, at the same time?.
Can a digital camera render skin tones like film does?, those are the question we have to ask ourselves.
I am in the music business, and we, (like many recording studios) use old analog vacuum tube preamps, and ribbon microphones in the studio along with digital mastering; nothing can beat that sound.
Both technologies blended together nicely back in the 80's. That's what we all are looking for on digital cinema.
I don't know if that could makes Tarantino change his mind, but are we there yet?, well, we are almost there, is all I can say..

 

[Elsie N]

Believe me, nobody wouldn't call a walking zombie something that has, life-like colors and perfect color reproduction.. not in the next 100 years..

I was talking about black and white film. Zombie Grey. '-)

 

[Pablo Moreno]

By the way, I been experimenting with color correction lately, and the combo REDCOLOR 3 - REDLOG in REDCINEX with default settings, renders awesome skin tones, so I take back some criticisms I made in the past.. give it a try, Go Red science!

 

[Scott Crawley]

So, what is dead?, the film technology or its LOOK ??.. Personally, I think one of them is still alive, and it will be.. forever!..

Hence, "The King is dead. long live the King!

 

[Matt Blair]

Quentin can do whatever he wants and he should be able to. He's inspired generations of filmmakers and his films are just downright a joy to watch. Saying he doesn't make movies for adults it just silly. He makes great films. Period.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I don't quite get all the fuss over "FILM" anymore.... Film is ALMOST dead in my opinion. The death and bankruptcy of KODAK FILM and others is a HUGE sign of where "film" is headed. FOX Studios actually publicly said they were not doing anything using film anymore that they produce and thats saying something there, no??

Have you ever actually shot motion picture film before? Just curious.

What's sad is that film was a perfectly reasonable alternative for cinematographers, a perfectly valid medium that still works in 2012, and is future-proofed for resolution in many ways... plus it's kind to actors and forgiving of DP's exposure mistakes (to a point). It just costs a lotta dough and has a more complex workflow in some ways than digital. Taking film away from DPs deprives them of yet another option... kind of like telling artists, "you can work in oils and chalk, but not in pastels."

I don't recall 20th Century-Fox's feature division saying they would never use film again. I think they'll use whatever a director wants, as long as the budget warrants it. (I know Cameron Crowe's film We Bought a Zoo was definitely shot on film, but Cameron's a very traditional guy.) The Fox TV division did give up on film as of pilot season about 3 or 4 years ago; I don't think they've done any TV projects on film since about 2008-2009.

Quentin is a very traditional guy. I know (for example) he doesn't like using timecode slates on-set -- he's more comfortable with just regular wooden slates. About the only part of digital that he likes is editing and the DI. Even then, he gets that bouncing film to 2K or 4K digital and seeing a digital representation of the film is not quite the same as a contact print from the lab. There is a different "character" to the image -- not completely worse, not completely better, but clearly different.

 

[Elan Gunos]

One aspect I can agree with on Tarantino is that digital project has been so-so. Ebert has a nice write up on how dim they are presented now, and says " Your best bet is apparently to (1) find a theater that doesn't use digital at all, (2) doesn't use Sony projectors, or (3) still projects light through celluloid the traditional way."

Link
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html

Quentin Tarantino says why he wants to quit making movies.
"I can't stand all of this digital stuff, this is not what I signed up for" (Video)