Comments on: Quentin Tarantino Plans To Retire After His Tenth Film, Hopes ‘Hateful Eight’ Will “Stop The Momentum” Of Digital

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:05 +0000

Well, I live in a huge city outside of the U.S. and after being pressured to "upgrade" to digital projection a few years ago all of the movie theaters near me can\’t show film prints and 70mm movies so at least in my neck of the woods we\’ve lost the battle to digital.

By: IndieWire

IndieWire — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Sorry Kevin for being so rash. I know this anonymous but my comment was just too unchill. I also have to let you know that I am actually your boss and this is my reaction to my frustrations with your current work. I hope you can forgive me.

By: IndieWire

IndieWire — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

(I am F*CKBOY)

By: fuckboy

fuckboy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

I don\’t know…"Kevin Jagernauth"…maybe if Tarantino thinks it is worth the "format," maybe it is. Maybe that is exactly what he is saying and you are part of the resistant dummies who are skeptical of a living breathing master of cinema. Fvck you and Indiewire.

By: Vin

Vin — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

I have nothing against digital, and it seems foolish to fight this particular tide, but after having seen Interstellar on 70MM last weekend, I was reminded that celluloid is simply beautiful when it\’s done with craftsmanship and artistry. I don\’t think the multiplexes or Hollywood are going back to digital (frankly, most moviegoers don\’t care or can\’t tell the difference), but it\’s good to know there are artists out there with enough clout to keep the format alive.

By: JJ Richards

JJ Richards — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Kubrick was interested in reinventing the form, and I believe he would have embraced the new possibilities of new digital technology. Tarantino is speaking here from a place of great privilege and helping to push back the door that has been opened for a new generation of filmmakers by the advancement of digital technology. F*uck this old perfectionist approach to filmmaking. For the rest of us trying our best to tell stories with the little means that we have, digital is a wonderful tool and allows us to shoot in ways that would otherwise have improved impossible. Coppola put it best – \’Suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is gonna be the new Mozart…and make a beautiful film with her father’s little camera-corder, and for once this whole professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever, and it will really become an art form.” Lets reinvent the form!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Clearly Glass you have no idea what you\’re talking about, so keep your opinion out of it. It\’s all shot on 70mm. The size of the screen doesn\’t mean that\’s the size of the film. It\’s shot in 70mm 2.35 scope, but the difference in screen size comes with the actual specialized Imax camera and film. That\’s when you see the difference, not when it\’s switching between 35mm and 70mm. And it\’s not about the writing, it\’s about the visuals, hence we\’re talking about the visual aspects of film. You could go in and watch Interstellar back to back right now if you wanted, one of them be digital the other be on film. You will see a clear difference. The digital version will do its best to look crisp and clear, but what it can\’t do is show the true contrast of lights and darks. It\’s just not capable of showing the film the way it was meant to be shown. If you don\’t care about the way a movie looks then stay out of the conversation while the people who know what they\’re talking about keep the fight going.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Glass, he understands we want great stories and characters. He\’s been delivering on that with all of his films and I don\’t doubt he will continue to do so for his remaining films. But the format does change the experience. When Marshall McLuhan said "the medium is the message," it isn\’t just a catchphrase. He means that quite literally…the medium by which you receive the message changes how you perceive the message. Maybe it\’s subtle, maybe it\’s obvious, but it\’s there. Just like listening to music on different formats (iPod vs. CD vs. vinyl (12" vs 10" vs 7")). Or grilling a piece of steak with wood vs. coal vs. electric (same cut, same rubs, same chef even). Or listening to a stand-up comedian in a small intimate bar vs. a big theatre vs. on DVD (same comic, same jokes).

By: Deb

Deb — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

We have two screens in Australia and have kept one screen on film only (16mm & 35mm) and the other is dual equipped with 35mm & 4K digital. We would have loved to screen Interstellar on 35mm, but there are no prints in Australia so we can only screen it digital, and this is the case for all latest releases here. It would be great if the studios over here would get in prints and make the film screenings an exclusive event, but they don\’t seem to get that it would be a great marketing tool for cinemas and a way of reinvigorating "going out to the movies" instead of staying home and downloading. In Australia, it is usually illegal downloading I\’m afraid.

By: Josue Molina

Josue Molina — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

The audience cares less if its shot in film or digital. They\’re looking for stories that resonate. Yes, an experience — cinema or whatever you want to call it. Panasonic 70mm or Red 6k, they\’re just tools for the craft. When color first came out in film, all the classic directors opposed it. Hitchcock loved it, because he said "I\’ll know when to use it."

By: Sandy Brownlee

Sandy Brownlee — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

There is a whole new egalitarianism emerging in filmmaking. The capability to tell stories, big and small, is now in the hands of a new generation, and some of those stories are – and will be – truly cinematic. How many young (or older) writers and directors outside of Hollywood will ever have access to 70mm film stock? It seems to me only an elite few will ever get their hands on even 35mm film. Digital is not the same, I understand that, but in the end, it’s about “great stories and characters,” as commented in an earlier response. Digital will move forward. It will grow in quality and accessibility – I’m convinced of that. And while a certain amount of garbage will be produced, I am convinced some amazing movies will be made. I don’t think film stock will completely go away, but you can’t stop the future.

By: bohmer

bohmer — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

The Hateful Eight will be a glorious last sentences in the film vs digital debate. Like the big peplum with thousands of extras was before CGI. Sure its gonna look awesome but it ain\’t gonna throw the industry backwards. The next big american names will grow up on golden age TV and won\’t think twice about this and it\’s okay. They\’re gonna draw unforeseen benefits from Digital as it\’s getting more and more sophisticated and propel the art forward, like any art before it.

By: Cuchillo

Cuchillo — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

If you want to see a 1930s Gangster Movie,
watch a 1930s Gangster movie.
The Roaring Twenties is a great one.
Cause you know, Tarantino is no Raoul Walsh

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

The thing is, from what I remember of the script it might as well have been a stage play. isn\’t like 90% of the film in a log cabin? Bit of a waste of that 70mm I reckon….

By: John Ranta

John Ranta — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Tarantino is a legend in his own mind. His films are cartoons full of silly violence. As for digital versus film, digital is superior to film in many ways. Which is why it has won. Tarantino\’s just a crotchety nostalgist, showing his reluctance to abandon the old ways…

By: Wright

Wright — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Be a shame if he were to retire after ten. He can be hit and miss, but the hits are great. Hope he does the 1930s gangster film, would love to see it and think it would play to his strenghts.

By: Dave, The Regular Guy

Dave, The Regular Guy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

"Directing is a young man\’s game"? Tell Scorsese that. Directing will always be a game for those who have something unique to say. You get frustrated by the game and retire when you run out of vision. HA! I just told off tarantino, ME, a regular guy.

By: edge

edge — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

I just hope one of the two last films is the 30s gangster film he used to talk about.

By: J A Swartz V

J A Swartz V — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Tarantino stays true to the form. Anything less than the best from the man would be disappointment. He has every right to steer us in the right direction. How Kubrick weigh in on this topic? Film makers should never aim to pour out quick and easy manifestations. Let them be difficult, and let the audience reap the reward if they are capable.

By: Glass

Glass — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Why can\’t this guy understand that we want great stories and characters and big, relevant themes with big drama. That\’s cinema. He talks about digital projection being TV in public – these JJ Abrams tentpoles are TV acting, TV writing and TV directing… and they\’re shot on film. It\’s movies like those that are helping blur the lines between TV and cinema, but because it had a few IMAX shots and the rest is 35mm celluloid, “THAT is cinema”… It\’s so frustrating seeing this film vs. digital debate make some of my favorite directors show their ass, interview after interview.

By: josh

josh — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

it\’s all storytelling to me, but i can sympathize with the digital vs film debate as the e-readers vs physical copy (magazines, books, etc) seems a close cousin, both losing to the newer technology.

By: Brenda

Brenda — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

Be an artist. That is who you are and what you do.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

You make a pretty big assumption if you think Kubrick would be anti-digital. He was fascinated by the precision of technology, and I don\’t think it\’s a stretch to see him go the route of someone like James Cameron (obviously not as a storyteller… ). Kubrick constantly said his goal as a filmmaker was to change the form. He failed at that. He nudged it a little bit with stuff like "2001," but I think he would have seen the upheaval in digital filmmaking as an opportunity for reinvention.

By: Ryan Strandjord

Ryan Strandjord — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

What a pretentious prick. Instead of squabbling about digital filmmaking he should be focusing on making good movies. It\’s been a long time since I\’ve seen a new one from him.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Mon, 23 May 2016 04:59:04 +0000

I\’m glad Tarantino has finally said what I\’ve been saying for years. The TV-afication of films. It\’s TV writers like JJ Abrams who have been denigrating film by basically taking TV shows into the theater. The younger generations don\’t know any better. They think films are supposed to be like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.