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

[Ketch Rossi]

Why do you feel the need to post things which are clearly untrue ? Kodak is still making film.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/The_Storyboard/4294969168/index.htm

Instead of reading cover up articles and drink their coo lade, just go to see the actual production, and then come back to me, while you are at it, also go see the Global current Film Production, then come back to me, and tell me if Film is not dead...

 

[Michael Ou]

I hope he comes around, or rather the tech reaches a point that surpasses even his expectations of what film can capture. To be at his level means to be many things, and being the film aficianado/auteur that he is, frankly, I'm not surprised with his position. Film, its history and traditions is in the very fabric of QT's DNA, think back to the early days of CD's, the audiophiles had a point (btw, tube amps remain some of the best), but thanks to Moore's law, vast improvements have been made and still are.

QT is clearly born and bred through the glorious analog tradition, just watch any of his films; he does all his writing longhand! That really speaks volumes to his methods and mindset. So never knock a guy's methods if it works for him, and contrary to all teenagers globally, life is and will remain analog unless we continue swallowing that blue pill, sorry can't escape corny film references (but how many of us LIVE through our iphones and blackberries? Hmm is Blackberry even still a player?) But for those of us that have taken the RED pill, the real world is moving very fast, let's be kind to all those we encounter because no matter how fast it's moving, don't forget, it's also getting smaller.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

He will come around. He just seems upset. He'll get over it and put out a string of phenomenal films in Digital for us to enjoy.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Instead of reading cover up articles and drink their coo lade, just go to see the actual production, and then come back to me, while you are at it, also go see the Global current Film Production, then come back to me, and tell me if Film is not dead...

Define "Dead" for us, because as far as I'm concerned film isn't dead, it may not hold the dominance it once did but rather than dying it's simply transitioning into a different status as an acquisition platform.
You mocked that press release as "Drinking their coo lade" but they list actual productions and when you look at the list of names on that list it's nothing to scoff at.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Define "Dead" for us, because as far as I'm concerned film isn't dead, it may not hold the dominance it once did but rather than dying it's simply transitioning into a different status as an acquisition platform.
You mocked that press release as "Drinking their coo lade" but they list actual productions and when you look at the list of names on that list it's nothing to scoff at.

Dead for a NON leaving objet is meant as it is no longer the preferred format, and for this Production world wide has incrementally been decreased severely, so much so were even the largest number of Theaters are no longer accepting reels, just Digital, while some of those that accept Reels, this most times then none come from a Digitally originated footage, so Digital is now King, were Film is here and there just trying to hung on something that is no longer there to hung on to, this are no longer opinions, bust numbers.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Check out this article. http://www.laweekly.com/2012-04-12/film-tv/35-mm-film-digital-Hollywood/

Besides the Nolan bit, what I find very interesting is the possibility that a lot of these art-houses that showcase 35mm films may go out of business because the studios are forcing DCP on them. Basically their operating budgets just won't allow them to do the upgrades and besides a big part of their purpose is showing 35mm prints.

As for Tarantino, I've never met him personally so I refuse to comment on his personality or his course of actions. I respect his contributions to the industry. I've enjoyed some of the movies, and I'd probably check out some of his future work if he continues on but I have to admit that there are a lot of other filmmakers that jump to the head of the must-see list for me.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Here he says he will quit because he doesn't want to make a film worse than Death Proof: http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/tarantino-death-proof-sucked/

Here he says he will quit after 10 movies because he doesn't want to be an old filmmaker and to protect his legacy: http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/quentin-tarantino-to-quit-after-10th-movie/291111

I have a hard time imagining him quitting though

To be fair my understanding of what he said was; (And I am paraphrasing) If Death Proof were to be judged as the worst film of my career, I would be OK with that. Edit: that may seem like a nitpick, but the difference could be night and day.

He does seem concerned that he should get out of Directing before his product turns to shit. Some might call it cowardice, and if he is using the digital shift as his scapegoat then we should take that into account.

 

[Craig Schober]

...he really doesn't make films for adults anymore. They're so over the top, and so outlandish, they simply become ridiculous!

Just like SLR imaging... you either grow with the times, or you get left behind.

or we have grown up and left him behind so he has always made childish and outlandish films. it's just that we are no longer childish.

 

[Scott Crawley]

or we have grown up and left him behind so he has always made childish and outlandish films. it's just that we are no longer childish.

I like your perspective however I'd be hard pressed to call Reservoir Dogs childish. Maybe I am confusing childish and child like.

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" Alwin Toffler

That said - I also see a certain "illiteracy" in those that "only" know digital. People nowadays don't always fully understand the "skill" of the cinematographer. They think that because they own a camera - they are a DP.

And from a "filmmaking"- "craft" perspective - with digital - I constantly see people not calling cut. As a result no one can actually focus on what the intent of a scene or shot is. Not the actors, not the director, not the operator. And these poor editors that get a flood of footage. They can't even watch it all - let alone be expected to make informed choices - when no choices were being made on set. "Just keep the camera rolling..."

So I see arguments for both sides.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Excellent points to which I propose a philosophical distinction. While enabling technologies such as digital imaging create the appearance of eroding craft I'm not yet inclined to view it as a strict cause and effect relationship.

If I may elaborate: Digital technology may have increased the DP ranks with individuals who have not yet achieved the same mastery of craft by enabling people to create pictures where their lack of skills had previously precluded them, that in itself does not cause an erosion of craft. It is the failure of newcomers to strive for the same level of mastery as their forebears, and of masters who no longer ply their craft because they feel the effort is no longer necessary. Either way it is laziness that will erode the craft rather than the enabling effects of the technology.

Edit: On second thought I guess that is what the Toffler quote expresses so perhaps I wasn't understanding you completely.

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" Alwin Toffler

That said - I also see a certain "illiteracy" in those that "only" know digital. People nowadays don't always fully understand the "skill" of the cinematographer. They think that because they own a camera - they are a DP.

And from a "filmmaking"- "craft" perspective - with digital - I constantly see people not calling cut. As a result no one can actually focus on what the intent of a scene or shot is. Not the actors, not the director, not the operator. And these poor editors that get a flood of footage. They can't even watch it all - let alone be expected to make informed choices - when no choices were being made on set. "Just keep the camera rolling..."

So I see arguments for both sides.

 

[Liam Hall]

Couldn't agree more Dylan.

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

Excellent points to which I propose a philosophical distinction. While enabling technologies such as digital imaging create the appearance of eroding craft I'm not yet inclined to view it as a strict cause and effect relationship.

If I may elaborate: Digital technology may have increased the DP ranks with individuals who have not yet achieved the same mastery of craft by enabling people to create pictures where their lack of skills had previously precluded them, that in itself does not cause an erosion of craft. It is the failure of newcomers to strive for the same level of mastery as their forebears, and of masters who no longer ply their craft because they feel the effort is no longer necessary. Either way it is laziness that will erode the craft rather than the enabling effects of the technology.

Edit: On second thought I guess that is what the Toffler quote expresses so perhaps I wasn't understanding you completely.

I think you've just given his quote more context. 100% agreed - it is the laziness that erodes. But the the access to the technology is the enabler! ;-)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" Alwin Toffler

That said - I also see a certain "illiteracy" in those that "only" know digital. People nowadays don't always fully understand the "skill" of the cinematographer. They think that because they own a camera - they are a DP.

And from a "filmmaking"- "craft" perspective - with digital - I constantly see people not calling cut. As a result no one can actually focus on what the intent of a scene or shot is. Not the actors, not the director, not the operator. And these poor editors that get a flood of footage. They can't even watch it all - let alone be expected to make informed choices - when no choices were being made on set. "Just keep the camera rolling..."

So I see arguments for both sides.

Yes, you absolutely make great points Dylan, and I have seen some of it on recent shoots, two of which were on Alexa, and 3 on Epic, on all 5 shoots, the Directors were not really too knowledgeable, or they simply tough would just be cool to have as much footage, so yea, so very sorry for the Editor, but also for the crew on set and the Talent, which in more then one occasion didn't even know that they were still rolling, while in other two they were continuing acting when the Director She had already walked away from the scene, and just simply forgot to call the CUT, but then again, I have also seen this on Film sets, couple of times on 100Mil + Budget films...

Coming from Single shot photography, and then having moved to faster cameras I had already had my taste in post were I had tone of pictures, almost identical to choose form, so I quickly learned not to be tricker happy.


However on Epic, to get the best shots there is no much choice but to shoot maximum speed at full resolution, which right now is 5k.FF@96fps, but you can trust me my takes are very short, and CUT is called out while I already have pressed the Stop button...


There are those that are DP's and great Cinematographers, either if they do own a camera or not, and so it is true also the way around, and it is not limited to Digital either.

 

[Robert Hart]

Many of you and the viewing audience have either been denied due to youth, or have long forgotten the purer "look" of film origination wthout the degradation that 2K digital intermediate introduced and the purer "look" of film projected wth light from carbon arc lamps versus the modern "cold arc" bulb lamps ( as in any colour you like as long as it is green or muddy tinged and silvery dull from a reflecting screen. )

So many modern "picturegoers" simply have not lived the experience so they are not aware of the incremental compromises to the visual experience that have occurred over the last human generation or so. I concede modern exhibitiion tech is more glitch-free in that blemishes and grain are much less prevalent and accompanying sound is streets ahead.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Therein lies the regrettable side of this advancement. I will keep the faith that the passions of the Red team and their ilk will bring the tech along to where we can cease our lament.

The king is dead. Long live the King! ... Premature?

Maybe QT will come back to film making before he ever leaves. ;-)

Many of you and the viewing audience have either been denied due to youth, or have long forgotten the purer "look" of film origination wthout the degradation that 2K digital intermediate introduced and the purer "look" of film projected wth light from carbon arc lamps versus the modern "cold arc" bulb lamps ( as in any colour you like as long as it is green or muddy tinged and silvery dull from a reflecting screen. )

So many modern "picturegoers" simply have not lived the experience so they are not aware of the incremental compromises to the visual experience that have occurred over the last human generation or so. I concede modern exhibitiion tech is more glitch-free in that blemishes and grain are much less prevalent and accompanying sound is streets ahead.

 

[Webster Miller]

Michael, nicely put. New technology creates new mindsets. Moving to the new tech is the easy part. Changing ones mindset is hard, especially when it works for you. And for people who have risen to the level that Mr Tarantino has, well the mindset is who they are and what has got them to that point.

I hope he comes around, or rather the tech reaches a point that surpasses even his expectations of what film can capture. To be at his level means to be many things, and being the film aficianado/auteur that he is, frankly, I'm not surprised with his position. Film, its history and traditions is in the very fabric of QT's DNA, think back to the early days of CD's, the audiophiles had a point (btw, tube amps remain some of the best), but thanks to Moore's law, vast improvements have been made and still are.

QT is clearly born and bred through the glorious analog tradition, just watch any of his films; he does all his writing longhand! That really speaks volumes to his methods and mindset. So never knock a guy's methods if it works for him, and contrary to all teenagers globally, life is and will remain analog unless we continue swallowing that blue pill, sorry can't escape corny film references (but how many of us LIVE through our iphones and blackberries? Hmm is Blackberry even still a player?) But for those of us that have taken the RED pill, the real world is moving very fast, let's be kind to all those we encounter because no matter how fast it's moving, don't forget, it's also getting smaller.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

We can only blame Kodak for not making cheap film scanners because just everybody wanted to shoot 35mm, it was the holly grail.... But we couldnt, we have to wait for the adapters, DLSRs etc etc. And Kodak even invented digital camera

 

[Elan Gunos]

I usually yell cut, very loud too. Maybe having only a 64GB card helps with that!

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn" Alwin Toffler

That said - I also see a certain "illiteracy" in those that "only" know digital. People nowadays don't always fully understand the "skill" of the cinematographer. They think that because they own a camera - they are a DP.

And from a "filmmaking"- "craft" perspective - with digital - I constantly see people not calling cut. As a result no one can actually focus on what the intent of a scene or shot is. Not the actors, not the director, not the operator. And these poor editors that get a flood of footage. They can't even watch it all - let alone be expected to make informed choices - when no choices were being made on set. "Just keep the camera rolling..."

So I see arguments for both sides.

 

[Pablo Moreno]

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!..